Please wait...
I'm still a fan of some things being apps instead of in a browser. When you
have 27 browser windows open it can be a pain to find the app you want.
Mon Aug 22 2016 20:43:16 EDT from wizard of aahzI'm still a fan of some things being apps instead of in a browser. When you have 27 browser windows open it can be a pain to find the app you want.
There is this fancy new thing called "tabbed browsing" coming up. I do not think it will stay with us, though...
But seriously, I think the same. Especially interaction between tabs is annoying.
Tabbed browsing doesn't end up helping.. 13 tabs open.. WHere the heck is
what I'm looking for?? <click><click><click>....
You can pin tabs, which makes them permanent and gives them a smaller area to click. Not really helpful. They should allow you to color or rename your tabs, that would help.
The "Awesome bar" is not awesome. I do not like searching from the location bar. If only you could turn it off, I shouldn't have to see my search results in the location bar when I start to type.
Ummm ... you guys do know that you can promote a tab to a top level window
simply by dragging it out onto the desktop, don't you? And if the browser
is Chrome, every tab (or window) runs in its own process and address space,
so there's really no difference between a browser based program and a native
program.
I have no idea what room is the room where we were discussing browser tabs. I tried the trick of dragging it to the desktop, it opens another version of the browser. This is NOT what I am looking for. That made things much worse.
IG - It also becomes just one more browser window open to try to find things...
Much better to have it's own icon as an app.
Yes, I get that, but the browser people are definitely working towards eliminating
any remaining issues in that category. You can open a web application and
have it launch into its own window, no browser controls visible, top-level
icon set to whatever is appropriate ... totally indistinguishable from a native
app.
Like I said ... totally indistinguishable. If it opens into its own window,
with its own icon, and hides the browser controls ... you shouldn't even know
it's a browser based app. That's the goal. Furthermore, if you're using
a browser that opens each site in a separate process (Chrome does, dunno about
others) then the interaction between the application and other browser activities
at the OS level should be minimal.
That's the objective, anyway. We're not 100% there yet. But we're close.
Remember the old days, when UPS and FedEx made you install dedicated software on your computer if you wanted to track a package? Imagine how ridiculous it would be if they asked you to do that today. Now extrapolate that, and think about the dedicated applications you're still using today.
(Damn this bagel is good. Not relevant to the discussion, but I'm having breakfast right now.)
Why use native for anything? Browsers can now display accelerated graphics, run client-side logic, interact with the user's mouse and keyboard, and now they're even learning how to do bidirectional audio and video. In this world, the browser *is* the operating system. The direction this can go in, ultimately, is one where the DOM is actually the operating system's native graphics toolkit, much like high-end 1980's workstations tried to make Display PostScript the native graphics toolkit.
The applications that I have open all the time that aren't a browser are: a terminal program, a soft phone, and an instant messenger. All three have already been implemented as web applications, but in the case of the soft phone and instant messenger, the vendors my organization uses (Cisco and Microsoft) haven't evolved past the native clients yet. For the terminal program, I will eventually put up a Guacamole server.
That's the objective, anyway. We're not 100% there yet. But we're close.
Remember the old days, when UPS and FedEx made you install dedicated software on your computer if you wanted to track a package? Imagine how ridiculous it would be if they asked you to do that today. Now extrapolate that, and think about the dedicated applications you're still using today.
(Damn this bagel is good. Not relevant to the discussion, but I'm having breakfast right now.)
Why use native for anything? Browsers can now display accelerated graphics, run client-side logic, interact with the user's mouse and keyboard, and now they're even learning how to do bidirectional audio and video. In this world, the browser *is* the operating system. The direction this can go in, ultimately, is one where the DOM is actually the operating system's native graphics toolkit, much like high-end 1980's workstations tried to make Display PostScript the native graphics toolkit.
The applications that I have open all the time that aren't a browser are: a terminal program, a soft phone, and an instant messenger. All three have already been implemented as web applications, but in the case of the soft phone and instant messenger, the vendors my organization uses (Cisco and Microsoft) haven't evolved past the native clients yet. For the terminal program, I will eventually put up a Guacamole server.
From a technology perspective, it's all fine.
However, for small businesses, it kind of sucks. Want Photoshop? Sure.
Pay $29.99 a month. Forever.
And it's like this with too many applications. They track everything you're doing, and you're paying for the privilege.
At least with client side apps, if the system still runs, you can keep it going (as long as it meets your needs) almost indefinitely.
You've got the control of when you upgrade or need new features.
And let's not talk about the security of a variety of cloud based apps.
Again, technology wise, it's all good (well mostly good - have any apps that are reliant on a hybrid and can't reach the mothership? Boy is THAT annoying.)
However, for small businesses, it kind of sucks. Want Photoshop? Sure.
Pay $29.99 a month. Forever.
And it's like this with too many applications. They track everything you're doing, and you're paying for the privilege.
At least with client side apps, if the system still runs, you can keep it going (as long as it meets your needs) almost indefinitely.
You've got the control of when you upgrade or need new features.
And let's not talk about the security of a variety of cloud based apps.
Again, technology wise, it's all good (well mostly good - have any apps that are reliant on a hybrid and can't reach the mothership? Boy is THAT annoying.)
I'm *only* talking about the user interface. The application software can
be located anywhere -- in the cloud, on your own organization's server, or
even on the same computer the browser is running on.
Douchebaggery from application vendors comes in lots of flavors. A lot of value comes with the monthly fee for an application: not only ongoing development and upgrades included, but also backups, maintenance, etc. In the end it's only expensive compared to pirating the software and doing all of your own system administration.
That having been said, I wouldn't pay for something like that, because I prefer open source software and operating my own servers.
Douchebaggery from application vendors comes in lots of flavors. A lot of value comes with the monthly fee for an application: not only ongoing development and upgrades included, but also backups, maintenance, etc. In the end it's only expensive compared to pirating the software and doing all of your own system administration.
That having been said, I wouldn't pay for something like that, because I prefer open source software and operating my own servers.
Finding an application that you host on your own server, but provides a thin client interface to the application from any reasonable PC works very nicely for corporations who want to save money on upgrades (by just upgrading the server without having to upgrade all the little clients).
But, if the application isn't available for hosting on your own server, yeah, it sucks.
"Now we can add, edit, and remove room categories to in the hotel from."
-- http://www.amooma.de/screencasts/2015-01-22-nested_forms-rails-4.2/
I think, even in German, that might be a few too many prepositions thrown together to make sense.