Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
I'm interested in knowing if that's what you are actually saying because,I'm not Vic, but I've thought that way for a LONG time. Pretty much since Day 1, and anybody that's had to do anything even remotely interesting on the client side has too... There's a reason ActiveX, Applets, etc. were implemented: straight HTML makes for a horrendous user experience as soon as it gets more complicated than "Hi, here's my web page."
while I have moved away from it a bit as I've said, I still believe that
approach has significant advantages, but for a long time I thought I was
the only one that thought so! :)
I think there are several reasons why those ideas 'failed' including (such diverse elements as) download times, security, developer reluctance, etc.
Download times are less of an issue than they used to be, but still important to consider. This is one reason why Flash isn't even more widely used than it is: the majority of Flash UIs are too big, because the entire page is Flash. If only important chunks were Flash we might be better off. If we all had fiber-to-the-wall it'd be irrelevent and everybody would expect a richer UI.
This is one nice thing about Ajax, especially now that the latest browsers pretty much support the whole range of DHTML, JavaScript, etc.--you can get a richer UI experience without the heinous Flash download penalty. (Flash is still nicer, though; I'm excited to start looking at Laszlo.)
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
