RE: UKNM: Needle in a haystack?

[Piers Beckley]

> -----Original Message-----

>

From: Tomski [tomtomski [dot] com (mailto:tomtomski [dot] com)]

> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:19 PM

>

To: uk-netmarketingchinwag [dot] com

> Subject: RE: UKNM: Needle in a haystack?

>

> >I'd like to also back this up from my personal experience.

> Trying to use a

> >browser as a user interface for anything other than what

> it's designed

> for -

> >hypertext browsing - sucks. Don't do it.

>

> aw piers, you're just scarred by a *really* nasty experience with a

> browser-based tool


for life, i fear...


> for a distributed content management (where people inputting/managing

> various sites are in many different locations, continents

> even), building

> your main editor/producer UI in a browser really is the only scalable

> solution, and if your UI and workflow thinking is clear, then it's not

> impossible.


Surely a client application will be easier to develop/maintain than a

browser-based client, have a smaller footprint & run faster? More to the

point it will also allow you to store & edit your info locally, then send it

up to the master server when ready, thus saving time & money.


Certainly you could use http via a cgi gateway to feed content back and

forth between client and server, but I am still convinced that a

halfway-decent windows/mac/unix programmer would be able to build a better

UI than a browser. I mean, a browser is _designed_ to be stateless. Why

should the user have to retrieve loads of info over the Internet when they

can have a local copy? (and yes, you _could_ do it by juggling cookies - but

that is not an elegant solution)


Of course, if you have to support a hundred different platforms, then that

could swing it for a browser-based system. But why is your company running

on a hundred different platforms? Save money on your techsupport and get a

standard build now!


> we've made darn sure we went for browser-based tools to

> manage a growing

> network of 10 multilingual local sites in places as far apart

> as norway,

> chile and new zealand. what is the poor editor in santiogo

> going to do when

> his bespoke application goes wrong? wait for someone to fly over and

> re-install?


Nope, that's what ftp's for :) If they can install a browser, they can

install a dedicated client.


> what are online banking / share dealing / shopping if not

> complex browser

> based tools? they're darn hard to develop, but worth it, cos

> the platform is ubiquitous.


Fair point. But the reason that these apps have to be built in browsers is

that there is no dedicated client (and no incentive to download one for a

"standard" user). In this case, you have no control over the platform that

your users are on, or the software that they install. But if you do have

that control, why not create a dedicated client?


Piers



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 the UK's totally managed affiliate marketing solution.

 ukaffiliates.com >> the net.working

 http://www.ukaffiliates.com /

salesukaffiliates [dot] com (mailto:salesukaffiliates [dot] com)

 telephone: 020 7691 1880 / fax: 020 7691 1881

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or

helpchinwag [dot] com