Examples of interesting, mostly well designed web interfaces, pure HTML5 based (and plenty of them not particularly modal) used daily by millions upon millions of satisfied users: google docs, gmail, vimeo, youtube, remember the milk, google groups, reader, wordpress, ....
Examples of interesting, mostly well designed swing interfaces, used daily by millions of millions of satisified users: .... uh.... IntelliJ? Who is being silly? On Nov 5, 11:52 pm, Rob Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 5, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You are positing a declaration ("A browser is not a suitable > > environment for writing desktop apps") which is either trivially true > > and thus uninteresting (A browser is obviously not meant for desktop > > apps), or which you haven't backed up (if we funge the definition of > > browser a smidge to include embedded geckos and webkits). I'll > > highlight the parts where you're just making unsupported statements: > > > On Nov 5, 9:42 pm, [email protected] wrote: > >> The problem is that if I use a browser for writing desktop applications, > >> then I have to jump through a lot of hoops just to get basic stuff like > >> this working, just to prevent a user from doing something silly. > > > "basic stuff like this" - what are you referring to? The back button? > > An embedded webkit can easily be configured to disable the back button > > and doesn't normally have one in the chrome unless you specifically > > put it there. However, the web model basically dictates that the back > > button should work and should do sensible things, it's part of what > > makes the UI of web apps far superior to non-web based desktop apps - > > as any user interface expert can tell you, undo beats the pants off of > > "are you sure" dialog boxes, or no way to revert, any day. > > Uhm, maybe a really bad interface expert would say that. "Back" implies you > have navigation state, which is something the user now has to remember. It > introduces modality into the human-computer interaction, and that always > increases the cognitive load on the user. > > Modal apps like Web UIs, Dialog Wizards, etc, are harder to use than > non-modal apps. For example, iTunes is a great non-modal app (not the > *store*, the player.) I find a song by searching. I double click to play. I > can hit stop to stop. There's basically just one UI screen to interact with. > No navigating required. > > Then when you do go to the store, that introduces the Web paradigm into the > mix, and complicates things again. I'm a savvy, experienced computer user and > even *I* sometimes get lost when I'm navigating the iTunes store. > > I'm not saying there is no place for modality in apps, just that it should be > avoided when possible, and it introduces extra complexity. Modal navigation > is NOT something a good UI expert would ever recommend, and certainly is no > evidence that the Web paradigm is "superior" to desktop apps. Now you're just > being silly. > > > When deploying to a vanilla browser I still say a webapp is generally > > a far better plan than a swing app, but obviously there are far more > > corner cases where a web app clearly isn't going to work. Something as > > simple as local file interaction isn't even possible, so if you need > > that, clearly "webapp" is not a good direction to take. That goes > > without saying, or, at least, I assumed so. When the case isn't as > > clear, though, web apps win. Just look at the state of IT 2010. > > Sure, you have your Web-tools hammer and by god you see nails all around. > Even when a screw or a rivet might be the better tool for a particular case. > > Rob -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
