Gregory Woodhouse wrote: >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.
Gregory, I am sorry if you were offended by my mention of "different skills and experience". That was not at all my intention. I did not use the word "lack" nor do I view that as a synonym of "different". The people in this discussion obviously do have *different* areas of skill and expertise and different factors in our experience that lead to different biases in our judgement of what is easy to do or difficult or even feasible. Some of us have expertise with Java or Delphi (I don't count myself here, although I have studied and worked with both in the distant past), while some are expert with MUMPS or Fileman or VistA or Linux or Microsoft or some branch of Medicine, etc. You appear to have more knowledge and experience with HL7 and XML and Macintosh than most. I believe that I have more experience and a much deeper understanding of web programming than most, however that is too big of a subject and growing too rapidly to claim mastery of more than a small part of it any more. There are too many possible approaches to software development for each of us to master them all fully and equally and, particularly in the area of web based applcations, they have been growing too fast in recent years to keep up with all of the newly developing capabilities. >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. I just posted a quote and some references to XUL that should give you a better idea of what I mean. The gamut of web applications is wide open and rapidly growing. I believe that it encompasses all of the client-side technology needed for a complete user interface to VistA or other EMR. Firefox itself is becoming a web application for enabling web applications. ;) > >--- 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. --------------------------------------- Jim Self Systems Architect, Lead Developer VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself) ------------------------------------------------------- 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
