Perhaps it has been overstated, perhaps not. To tell you the truth, I don't know the answer to this question (I considewr myself competent when it comes to UI design, but it is not my area of expertise). But instead of ascribing others views to lack of skill or experiernce, I would like to think we could make the discussion a little more objective. Is it possible to clearly specify what you mean by "rich functionality"? How about in the case of a specific user interface? Given a clear interface specification, it is possible to address the question of whether it can or cannot be implemented with a particular technology. Without a clear definition of what we mean by "rich functionality", there is little hope of making progress.
--- Jim Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Certainly, I am one who believes that the difficulty of getting rich > interactivity from > web applications has been overstated. Some of the differing opinions > come from having > different skills and experience and some of us perhaps not > understanding how easily the > applications we envision could be built and used and maintained with > a set of tools > different from the ones we know best. > === Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Design quality doesn't ensure success, but design failure can ensure failure." --Kent Beck ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
