Wednesday, 28 January 2004

I think that the word of the day should be no. That word saves a lot of people a lot of headaches. Right now I think that my boss is saying yes to everything, and it is starting to scare me. I'm the one that is saying no all the time, if only to reign (wrong one, I know) people in. Saying "no, that is not possible" or "we cannot control that" seems to be what I say in meetings. But I think that I am raining on people's parade since they are mostly talking about future stuff. I just want to make sure that people don't think that this will get done any time soon, if at all. Plus, if I say no to everything right away, I get a better feel what is really important to people to have. If I said yes, I think that they would want it to do everything, including making coffee.

In other news, the weather here isn't that great. It took me (over?) 2 hours to get in today... an hour just to get to Kanata. *sigh* And the thing that most annoyed me about the drive in? Someone's car broke down in the fast lane of the 417 where it is only 2 lanes in each direction, and they just walked away. If that happens, try to push your car out of the way. I think that people will help you if you can't do it yourself, since you have stopped traffic anyways. Seesh. Not only does it mean that you make it harder for people to drive, but it also means that the plows are not able to properly clear the road. I am sure that you get charged for abandoning your car in the middle of a road. I think that the cops might at least understand if you tried to move it to the side of the road. Grrr.....
Listening to: Stan Rogers - Barrett's Privateers


Posted by at
Labels:

14 comments:

  1. peter28 January 2004 at 12:32

    "You will hire more Junior Developers.." *waves in a washing motion*
    (hehehe, yes I just re-watched all the StarWars movies..)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim28 January 2004 at 12:55

    hahaha... I don't know what's happening with that. One of the things that they were talking about today was when you go to your favourites in IE, have it open in a new window... which I REALLY don't think is possible at all. That and "drag and drop". I was like "uhh, you can't do that with a browser". I can see this project putting on a fat client in a later date, but that's a whole other bag of beans. Mmmm... java beans. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. peter28 January 2004 at 14:36

    Actually, you can do drag and drop with a browser, you just have to know how... (Hire me and I'll explain.. muahahhaa...) (but seriously, it is possible..)
    I'm pretty sure there's also a way to open IE favorites in a new window (I'm thinking javascript)..

    ReplyDelete
  4. James28 January 2004 at 15:58

    It should be possible to do the favorites opening in another window...I don't see why that is a good thing but it should involve creating a plugin for explorer that would basically disable the current favorites functionality and be activated on the open favorites event...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim28 January 2004 at 16:30

    Yes, but do I want to force the users to have a modified version of IE or whatever they like to use? Do I want to make plug-ins? Not really...
    It would be better in the long run I think to just make a client for the people. That would solve a lot of problems, but I'm not going to push for that right now. One step at a time...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter28 January 2004 at 20:56

    What exactly is it that you're trying to do?
    You could always just have them bookmark a page that creates a new window and then goes where you want it to.. (and then have the original window go 'back' by simply loading the last URL in the browser history...)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ryan29 January 2004 at 06:40

    ARG, why do people insist on breaking browsers? Browsers display pages of stuff, they aren't application platforms!!..as,d.asdkiajsldkjasd NO CARRIER

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim29 January 2004 at 09:13

    hahahaha... I can see Ryan turning red as we speak... hee hee...

    ReplyDelete
  9. James29 January 2004 at 12:01

    "ARG, why do people insist on breaking browsers?"
    The same reason they combine dvd players with vcrs, phones with video games, pickup trucks with cars (el camino), men with spandex. The extension of a good idea (scratch dudes in spandex as a good idea), even if the extension shouldn't be done.

    ReplyDelete
  10. peter29 January 2004 at 15:28

    >> Browsers display pages of stuff, they aren't application platforms!!
    Actually, I disagree with that.
    Applications display forms of text information and GUI components. The fact that the information and components are rendered as HTML in a browser doesn't negate the fact that it's still an application.
    Yes, there are definite limitations to deal with, but the fact is that if I want an application to have truely universal portability (anywhere, anytime.. not just any platform), then it is going to be a web app, and not something that requires an external component/platform/framework to be available in order to work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jim29 January 2004 at 20:47

    I think that everything has a place.
    With a non-web app, you have a lot more control over how it works: you can read / write to the hd; you control very closely what the user sees because you built it; etc.
    Now web apps are the "thing to do", and work very well for some things. They allow you to keep centeral control and allow you to make updates easy...
    If we only used browsers for what they were originally made for, we'd never see images, and the whole net would just look like ass.
    I still have not made up my mind (or can you tell?). I'll take the lawyers route and say "we have to look at it on a case by case basis". ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ryan29 January 2004 at 21:13

    The truly good web apps out there are the ones that still look like web pages. Look at Yahoo, Google, Amazon and eBay. They don't use a lot of Javascript or DOM. That's what I meant. The web browser was never meant to be a heavy lifting client, and it's no wonder that it never made the transition to one (it's not all Microsoft's fault either).

    ReplyDelete
  13. peter30 January 2004 at 13:04

    Exactly. That's why you take everything into consideration during design.
    Web-Apps are meant to be light-weight, convenient clients. If someone things that they can (ever) be more then that, they're in for a world of hurt.
    I don't exactly consider Google or Amazon to be Web-apps though. 99% of the time using Google you see the same two forms (pages). Amazon is a shopping-cart system with only one clear purpose (to sell as much as possible). You can kind of blur the line there, but the fact that you could probably still get 90% of the functionality with three forms doens't really make it a good example of an 'application', IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ryan30 January 2004 at 19:10

    Google and Amazon most definitely are applications, and that's what a good web app is: like an iceberg ... a shitload going on underneath the water and a little tiny visible above water that people can see. Unfortunately people have been taking web clients to extremes, forgetting the great examples that Google, Amazon and eBay make.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)