I know the software I am writing doesn't yet have all of the features it needs to have. I figure that this volunteer-written app (again, eager to see it) simply doesn't have every feature either. That is no shame. I don't know if there is an intent to deploy it for Chrome, FF, Safari, etc, I'm guessing there is an intent to have it usable in IE 8 at some point. If the intent is never to add the feature of being generally usable in a browser-other-than-IE environment, that would still put it in a category with many other s/w applications out there. That a piece of software to be used by a relatively small group of people for an infrequently needed (by each person) purpose has a specific, proprietary run-time environment should not be a shocker to any of us, I would think. That run-time environment is widely available, even if not on my box (with > 6 web browsers installed right now).
That a piece of deployable software could be written by volunteers in relatively short order is great. Even if I would rather see developers have toolsets and frameworks that provide cross-browser support, that can be quite expensive to write and support. It sounds like you picked a strategy and have a deployable and usable software app. If we want to use it,we need to have the run-time environment for it. If I needed to run this app right now, I'm sure I could install a viable run-time for it, just as people have been doing since PC's came along. So, congrats for getting this far with it. I'll suggest that whenever you give the URL you call it an IE-app, which you might have done, just to set expectations right so that we don't think it is a web app (which is what people usually give URLs for). I suspect that is the cause of this discussion here right now. Some people have not seen URLs given for apps that were not written to be web apps. Not every application must be a web app. I see no problem with this particular app for B&B having a specific run-time environment rather than being able to run in any browsers I currently have installed (5 right now on this box, FF3.5, IE8, Opera 10beta2, Chrome 2, SeaMonkey). I had intended to keep IE7 loaded and add IE8, but somehow missed the opportunity when loading IE8 to install it as a separate browser. For our app development, I'm testing pages in IE 6 on another machine and I'm ignoring IE7 right now, hoping that if a page works in IE6 and IE8, then it will also work in IE7 (yeah, I know better than to think that, but I'm still going to ignore IE7 until the last minute, there just aren't enough hours in the day) Cheers! --dawn On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Glen B <batch...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Kevin King wrote: > >> Having been on the board in a past life - for what little I did contribute >> - >> I can say that the U2UG board and volunteers work hard and should be >> commended for their efforts. That said, can we all please stay focused on >> the results without getting personal about it? >> >> >> > > I've yet to get personal about anything relating to this. However, I'm > free to voice my opinion on the subject since public inquiries were > requested. I'm all for the project, provided the masses can actually use it. > > Personally, I think this B&B thing is an excellent idea and I'm looking >> forward to taking a peek at it. I also think that we as an industry need >> to be more forward thinking in adopting web technology, and I'm pleased >> that >> the board is making strong moves in that direction. (And hey, for this >> worldwide group, it just makes good sense.) >> >> >> > > Kevin, we both know the current state of the "industry". It is moving > forward (slowly), but is this vendor-specific "forum" of comments really > going to affect the rest of the industry? It's great for IBM and for U2 and > I'm all for it. I have no interest in seeing any volunteer project fail, as > I've seen plenty of my own get buried in the bit bucket from a lack of > interest and/or lack of vision. We need to be realistic here, though. > Chrome, Safari, Opera, and Fire Fox are just as popular as IE and are the > preferred or only browser available on many desktops. Luckily, there is a > fix for Fire Fox. What about all of the Mac users, though? Chrome is growing > in popularity as well, so it can not be ignored. Look at the iPhone's > explosion. It has Safari, not IE. Would it not be nice to be able to submit > bug reports and feature requests from your iPhone, waiting at the airport? > The same can be said for all web-capable mobile devices that don't run some > mobile version of Windows, which is a large percentage. > > This browser incompatibility issue rings oddly familiar, reminiscent of >> applications throughout history that only worked properly on Wyse50's or >> some other CRT. Anyone remember PROF on the old Reality systems? Early >> releases of that product were the poster child for terminal >> incompatibility >> (pun intended). And you know what? We worked through all that. >> >> >> > > Yeah, we ended up using emulation software that could handle them all. A > decade later the web grew up and became useful for businesses. There are > browser emulators available, but the only people that really use those are > web devs. I just don't buy your logic here. > > Now we're faced with different "terminal emulators" going by the names of >> IE, FF, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and a few others. Sure, the whole >> connection >> method has changed - stateful telnet going the way of stateless http - yet >> at the most fundamental level, it's all just bits on a wire talking to >> some >> device on the other end. Too simple, you say? I disagree. It >> *is*simple. It's the same problems we've addressed before and that we >> will >> address again and again as the technology landscape evolves. >> >> >> > > The difference here is that there _is_ (and has been for a long time) a > standard and it's called W3C. There is no "incompatibility" unless you > develop outside of the W3C standards. AJAX and various other > Javascript-based development methods (JQuery is great!) can work with all > W3C compliant browsers if the standards are followed. Some extra coding is > required and some "features" may have to be dropped or simulated using other > methods to implement the desktop-like features users want now. Heck XHTML is > the standard now and all of the mentioned browsers support it along with > AJAX and CSS. I think even Konquerer will properly run AJAX sites, provided > the site doesn't use IE-only features. > > Having established this context, I do have concerns about the premise that >> we need Microsoft technology to do the web properly or that Microsoft >> technologies give us something that we couldn't get any other way. Of >> course, the same could be said of IBM or Oracle or ... name any company >> here. As solution providers we need options, and therefore the best thing >> our vendors can do is to give us more options to do what we need to do as >> quickly, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible. To that end, what >> the B&B group is doing is positive steps in the right direction. >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > > > Yes. It's great, as a starting step. I just hate to see a ton of work go > into a framework that is so browser restrictive. > > GlenB > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Take and give some delight today _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
