>
>Thanks for the feedback, Andu:
>
>>> A quick survey of MetaCard developers, if you don't mind:
>....
>> But what do you need this for if I may ask?
>
>I'm seeing a big shift away from desktop applications and onto the Web, and
>wanted to get a feel for what others are doing with MC.
>
>It seems that the three main ways MC can contribute to Web work are:
>
>- CGI solutions
>- Net-aware applications ("custom browsers")
>- Web production tools
>
>Historically, most of our work with MC has been designing desktop
>applications, but in recent months the bulk of the work coming in has us
>using JavaScript or Flash (or in the case of Flash 5, both together).
>Since most ISPs only allow Perl-based CGIs, we're finding ourselves spending
>less time with MetaCard than I would prefer. I'm working with my favorite
>client on adding some net-savvy to his app, but I'd like to be working in MC
>even more. JavaScript and Perl simply aren't as much fun. :)
That's because there is a price for fun;-)
>
>So the biggest reason for finding out what others are doing with MC is
>twofold:
>
>- What are the opportunities for a RAD tool like MC in
> a Browser-centric world?
I think many. Too few people are involved with this right now so there isn't a lot of
experience in this domain.
>
>- What untapped opportunities may still exist in the
> world of desktop applications?
>
>The breadth of what MetaCard delivers also makes it relatively difficult to
>define. We can build almost anything for a client, but more and more they
>seem to prefer that it take place inside of a browser window.
No wonder. Every one uses a browser probably more than any other application. There's
the convenience of not having to switch to another application which can go as far as
accepting lots of limitations. Think of web mail for example.
>
>Given the relative newness of this Web fenzy, I suspect that the browser
>will ultimately prove to be a transitional phase, a stepping stone on the
>way to other things which allow more flexible user interfaces for both
>content presentation (which is currently good on the Web) and data
>manipulation (at which the Web sucks -- can you imagine using a
>browser-based spreadsheet?).
Yes but the necessity of not having to switch from one ui to another will always be
there.
Don't forget the computer is still highly unintuitive and even the simplest
interaction with it requires a lot of knowledge.
>
>There are probably several dozen categories of things MetaCard can do that
>would really drive its value home to a variety of organizations. SETI and
>Napster are two popular examples of distributed apps which conceivably could
>have been written in MetaCard, and I suspect there are a few thousand more
>waiting to be discovered.
>
>A question in response to your post: Since you mentioned being able to
>spend 95% of your time with MC and that most of your work is for the Web,
>does that imply that you're building server-side MC CGIs? Or "custom
>browsers" a la AOL?
More of the first but consider also the clients I made and still working on.
>
>--
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Media Corporation
> Multimedia Design and Development for Mac, Windows, UNIX, and the Web
> _____________________________________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com
> Tel: 323-225-3717 ICQ#60248349 Fax: 323-225-0716
Regards, Andu
_______________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
