Reply to: Web 2.0 technologies (e.g. Ajax)

[bogeyman]

... what is the rationale for using .NET for that? ...

Because .NET makes it easy to do. The .NET classes are already out there. I doubt I could find them for PeopleCode.

The alternative would be to write a ton of low-level code (most likely in VC++) to talk to the MIDI interface driver. Life's too short.

I agree this is a rather trivial and esoteric example of an application, but not all applications revolve around business databases.

A more realistic one might be real-time analogue data logging and analysis. Again .NET is well equipped to do this with a variety of open and proprietary solutions.

That's the point I was making. .NET isn't tied to a particular 'mode' of application (e.g. business database model). Maybe PeopleSoft isn't tied to that either but I doubt theres much a market in extending it into non-mainstream business apps.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Can I use Peopletools/code to write a program to tell my MIDI-attached music synthesizer to play a set of random melodies simulating a wind-chime?

Truthfully, I haven't tried this, but can't see any reason why not - as a matter of interest, what is the rationale for using .NET for that?

Perhaps I can but I wasn't aware of it.

That's all I was saying.

Also, how much does a PS dev/run environment cost compared to .NET (free compiler, free runtime if you have Windows)?

Good point, well made: although I did once see the whole package on a CD that a colleague bought on holiday in the far east
I actually don't know how much it is, but it's a lot more than zero. BTW, I'm not even saying it's any good - just that it can do most of what .NET can.

[bogeyman]

There are loads out there already, some developed by Peoplesoft (Financials, Manufacturing etc), and some bespoke.


So does PeopleSoft (specifically Peopletools) with a huge amount of overlap with .NET- a fact that is clearly not well understood.

I know it's largely irrelevant, but that doesn't stop it being true.

Can I use Peopletools/code to write a program to tell my MIDI-attached music synthesizer to play a set of random melodies simulating a wind-chime?

Perhaps I can but I wasn't aware of it. Also, how much does a PS dev/run environment cost compared to .NET (free compiler, free runtime if you have Windows)?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Perhaps others would like to develop applications that have nothing to do with CRM or HR

There are loads out there already, some developed by Peoplesoft (Financials, Manufacturing etc), and some bespoke.

Talk about a blinkered view of the world.

.NET provides a hell of a lot actually.

So does PeopleSoft (specifically Peopletools) with a huge amount of overlap with .NET- a fact that is clearly not well understood.

I know it's largely irrelevant, but that doesn't stop it being true.

[bogeyman]

On a purely partisan point, .NET doesn't do much (if anything) you can't do using, well...... PeopleSoft as it happens.

Perhaps others would like to develop applications that have nothing to do with CRM or HR

Talk about a blinkered view of the world.

.NET provides a hell of a lot actually.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

WHS

It's one of my bugbears... .NET is another case in point, does nothing that couldn't be done before with old-school technologies. Purely another MS business case.

On a purely partisan point, .NET doesn't do much (if anything) you can't do using, well...... PeopleSoft as it happens.

[bogeyman]

Well, they're just more dynamic and personalised instead of static HTML. That sort of thing has been around for ages, via server-side scripting and databases and forums and so on, but the Web 2.0 thing comes in more when page content changes without reloads. Like when select box content changes as you fill in a form, or maps load as you drag around Google Maps, or TV channels and programmes load as you scroll through the Sky TV listings.

That sort of thing.

There's the usual moaning articles from "usability consultants", but life would be a bit dull if we'd all stayed with Jakob Nielsen's recommendations ten years ago.

What makes a Web 2.0 site?

Well the technology employed is the least of it. It's more about user participation, marketing puff and the overuse of subtle colour gradients and reflections - oh and don't forget that essential 'Beta' next to the logo!

Agree though, there are good sites (like Google Maps) that would be impossible, or at least hugely tedious, if they didn't use async scripting like Ajax.

Agree also, Nielsen is a thoroughgoing git. Just look at his site (http://www.useit.com/) and tell me how in touch this guy is with the web of 2008.

[NickFitz]

My gripes with most "ajax" sites are....


1. All the asynchronous calls bog down the site.
2. It's not intuitive that I might have to hover over a picture or drag one element to another or that some widget is going to pop-up if I right click something etc.
3. The URL does not change as I navigate the site. From a useability point of view this is bad and from a SEO point of view it is commercial suicide.
4. There is no standard. A link might be activated by a mouseover, maybe a click, maybe a drag.
5. Anyone using a screen reader, or requires a large font or with disabilities is fooked.
6. It works with some browsers and not others.

Overall, a big turn off.

1. Due to incompetence - most so-called web developers don't even understand the basics of HTTP, let alone have any proper understanding of asynchronous client-server architecture;
2. Poor UI design - again, due mainly to the developers being unfit for purpose;
3. More poor UI design - as a general rule, a meaningful static state for the application (as opposed to, say, stage 3 of some process which makes no sense to bookmark) should be clearly identifiable, and retrieveable, by a unique URL;
4. Poor UI design again - there are conventions, and just because it is possible to circumvent them doesn't mean that it's a good thing to do so;
5. More incompetence - there is absolutely no reason for a web application not to be accessible: progressive enhancement is the key here;
6. Guess what... more incompetence, and once again the correct use of progressive enhancement is the solution.

All excellent points, summarising just about all of the problems commonly found in the wild

[dang65]

So exactly the sort of thing that desktop apps, or Flash, or Java, or plugins were doing 10 years ago but given a fancy new name?

Sort of. But I suspect you'd find the web of ten years ago incredibly flat and dull when you're used to Google Maps, YouTube, LastFM, eBay, BBC iPlayer, online banking and the sort of Ajax interaction which you don't even notice because you're so used to it now. And before broadband most of that technology you mention was verging on useless even if it existed.

[DimPrawn]

My gripes with most "ajax" sites are....


1. All the asynchronous calls bog down the site.
2. It's not intuitive that I might have to hover over a picture or drag one element to another or that some widget is going to pop-up if I right click something etc.
3. The URL does not change as I navigate the site. From a useability point of view this is bad and from a SEO point of view it is commercial suicide.
4. There is no standard. A link might be activated by a mouseover, maybe a click, maybe a drag.
5. Anyone using a screen reader, or requires a large font or with disabilities is fooked.
6. It works with some browsers and not others.

Overall, a big turn off.

[kali]

So exactly the sort of thing that desktop apps, or Flash, or Java, or plugins were doing 10 years ago but given a fancy new name?

Good old IT - let's keep recycling the same concepts and getting paid over and over again for it.

WHS

It's one of my bugbears... .NET is another case in point, does nothing that couldn't be done before with old-school technologies. Purely another MS business case.

[VectraMan]

Like when select box content changes as you fill in a form, or maps load as you drag around Google Maps, or TV channels and programmes load as you scroll through the Sky TV listings.

So exactly the sort of thing that desktop apps, or Flash, or Java, or plugins were doing 10 years ago but given a fancy new name?

Good old IT - let's keep recycling the same concepts and getting paid over and over again for it.

[dang65]

So what makes a site a Web 2.0 one?

Well, they're just more dynamic and personalised instead of static HTML. That sort of thing has been around for ages, via server-side scripting and databases and forums and so on, but the Web 2.0 thing comes in more when page content changes without reloads. Like when select box content changes as you fill in a form, or maps load as you drag around Google Maps, or TV channels and programmes load as you scroll through the Sky TV listings.

That sort of thing.

There's the usual moaning articles from "usability consultants", but life would be a bit dull if we'd all stayed with Jakob Nielsen's recommendations ten years ago.

[VectraMan]

So does Ajax define Web 2.0 then? I've never quite worked out what "Web 2.0" really meant, other than some vague description about non static content, which sounds a lot like the thing I'm using now (and forums were around long before Tim Berners Lee did his thing).

So what makes a site a Web 2.0 one?

[Moscow Mule]

A good case in point.

So is iGoogle better than Google?

Is the new fangled BBC portal better than the old site?


No.

In my opinion, igoogle is much better than google as I can use it as an RSS feed aggregator at work.

I also quite like the BBC portal.

Pageflakes looks a complete dogs dinner.