|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: No, you don't. You want whatever you do, done right.
I hear you. The first priority is to produce a stable working model, then shine it up afterwards. But the shine must come before you show it to the world, at least in some environments, wouldn't you agree?
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
BobishKindaGuy wrote: But the shine must come before you show it to the world, at least in some environments, wouldn't you agree?
I'll agree that there are environments that judge a car by it's paintjob 
Good wine needs no bush.
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I hear ya!
But a few years ago, I was in the market for a car, and I did hesitate to buy the Lada. Could have been a good car, it even shipped with a toolkit so you could fix it yourself. But something about it didn't inspire confidence.
Philosophizing here: What we really need is a "car", instead of all these throwaway junk boxes. Capitalism! Competition! It's creating huge scrap heaps! Whereas "cooperation" would produce a nice solid, reliable, simpler, and durable product, like say a stainless-steel car.
I think it's similar here. What we need is a reliable product, not a glitzy one. But some of the grace built into a product to make it look cool also can end up making it seem more intuitive to the user. I've always put a lot of thought into the UI. Maybe too much, and I'm sure your comment is meant to help us balance the two concerns. I am listening!!
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
BobishKindaGuy wrote: Philosophizing here: What we really need is a "car", instead of all these throwaway junk boxes. Capitalism! Competition! It's creating huge scrap heaps! Whereas "cooperation" would produce a nice solid, reliable, simpler, and durable product, like say a stainless-steel car.
I'd like to defend the opposite opinion, but that would have to be done in the soapbox
BobishKindaGuy wrote: I've always put a lot of thought into the UI. Maybe too much, and I'm sure your comment is meant to help us balance the two concerns.
Maybe I'm just being religious on the subject, but I've got a good excuse; I'm wearing a developers hat. Adding Window-dressing would be a waste of system-resources, but a good marketeer will insist on it if it helps in promoting the product.
Are you familiar with the UX guide[^]?
I are Troll
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Maybe I'm just being religious on the subject
No, I think your thoughts are very relevant and well-thought-out.
Folks like me that have to be both the developer and marketer though, have to be sensitive to both concerns.
"Way cool" means different things to different people. I don't mean window dressing, but well-thought-out intuitive placement, coloring, and response of UI elements, that help the user do the job as easily as possible. For example, one of the things I have in most windows is built-in help in a collapsible panel. To me, not wow but ease of use is "way cool". However, I did get the head of one IT dept the other day say "wow" when she saw one of my screens. That made me feel pretty good...
I'm sure you don't mean that anything that looks good is a waste of system resources. I conclude that you must be referring to color schemes that look cool to the teeny-boppers, being dark grey with orange text and animations and so on that would tend to use processor time for little other than amusement to the developer.
Hey, this IS starting to sound like a soapbox rant, isn't it!! I'll shut up now.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
BobishKindaGuy wrote: I don't mean window dressing, but well-thought-out intuitive placement, coloring, and response of UI elements, that help the user do the job as easily as possible.
That's it 
BobishKindaGuy wrote: For example, one of the things I have in most windows is built-in help in a collapsible panel. To me, not wow but ease of use is "way cool". However, I did get the head of one IT dept the other day say "wow" when she saw one of my screens. That made me feel pretty good...
Hehe, that's a very cool reaction to receive! And yes, an application with a well-designed UI usually stands out. Heavy drinkers should be able to recognize a good wine 
BobishKindaGuy wrote: I'm sure you don't mean that anything that looks good is a waste of system resources. I conclude that you must be referring to color schemes that look cool to the teeny-boppers, being dark grey with orange text and animations and so on that would tend to use processor time for little other than amusement to the developer.
Your conclusion is almost correct, the colorscheme had a gradient lightblue instead of dark gray.
I are Troll 
|
|
|
|
|
You are way cool
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
The discussion is now going beyond the original subject( best way to convert desktop app to web app)...
So, The bottom line (about original subject) is
"We haven't been there yet!"
Is that right?
I think Webmatrix is good to apply. Not sure that it's sufficent to apply.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks JongchanAhn,
I haven't seen any answer yet that seems irrelevant to me, though. And what you say - "We haven't been there yet" is partially true, since we don't have anything yet that works like - say - a phone, where you pick it up and get a dialtone. But what I needed here is exactly what I'm getting - ideas for working toward the goal now instead of waiting for the day when things are as easy as a phone. What do you think - does that sound reasonable?
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
A well developed .NET desktop app should be easily ported to ASP.NET. You do however want to analyze the server requirements and the load that it may encounter. If it's a calculation intensive application (ie: Scientific, 3D graphics, etc) then it may be better as a desktop app.
|
|
|
|
|
MatrixDud wrote: A well developed .NET desktop app should be easily ported to ASP.NET
I'd love to get some more comments on this. With SL, WebMatrix, Ajax, and a whole confusing array of other stuff that is all "newer" than ASP.NET, I hesitate to jump into an ASP.NET project unless it is really the best way to go. For example, has MS produced good-looking controls for ASP.NET? If ASP.NET "had it all", why did the world need Silverlight?
(The comment about calculation-intensive is not a concern for my app, though. It's more about interactivity between server and client. E.g. The user clicks a button on the UI and this causes the server app to control a piece of equipment interactively.)
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Silverlight is Microsoft's answer to Adobe Flash. You could write applications in it, but ASP.NET is the preferred solution.
ASP.NET 3.5 is modern and does have quite a few nice controls. What doesn't exist you can make. You can always buy pre-made custom controls from vendors to save time. If you are familiar with .NET then there will not be much of a learning curve moving to ASP.NET.
You should investigate and get familiar with AJAX. AJAX avoids the constant page refreshes and can make a web application feel much more like a desktop app.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, MatrixDud,
I know there must be some benefit in ASP.NET and AJAX. I have glanced at these in the past, but never got up the gumption to wade in.
But others are suggesing that Silverlight 4 is the way to go, and I see some pretty nice visuals with that.
Regarding pre-made custom controls from vendors - I'm trying to avoid using 3rd party controls, as nice as they are. This is to avoid bugs or version changes in someone else's code causing my customer to get mad at me.
So I'm now thinking about RIA, MVVM, and Silverlight 4. Bill Burrows has some pretty impressive tutorials at myVBProf.com. Have you had a look at those yet?
I didn't want to become a xaml programmer, which VS2008 seemed to try to make us, but I think I could force myself to do a bit of that. VS2010 seems to provide more UI tools to write the xaml for us.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
MY first question is why?
Does it really need to be a web bassed app? What value do the users gain, or are you just looking for something cool to try
The only reason I bring it up is because it could be a SIGNIFICANT effort.
You might get more value by simply migrating parts of the application engine over to Dotnet instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Ray, good question.
1. Many of the orgs that buy my product are (or pretending they are) moving towards standardizing on browser apps only.
2. The system is already client/server, and client and server communicate information with each other in real time using .NET Remoting. If all the processing were done on the server side, I think the remoting could be done away with, which would be a generally good thing since tcp packets flying around are sometimes interfered with by firewalls, etc.
3. Users could use the client from home instead of exclusively on their workstations (without RDC or TeamViewer etc).
Ray Cassick wrote: You might get more value by simply migrating parts of the application engine over to Dotnet instead.
This second point is what other friends have been posting. I think I could work towards this goal by moving more of the functionality to the server component, although when I think of just what functionality could move, I'm left with significant business rules etc that I enforce right in the windows form. I guess even that could migrate...
I would still have a windows form app, though, but one benefit there would be a skinnier app, and of course, it would force me to get closer to the browser concept. Just thinking out loud, my UI is somewhat rich- glow buttons, enhanced datagrid allowing column selection, custom columns, export to excel. If I were starting over, no doubt most of what I have just mentioned would end up on the server side.
I still come back to - use what? Silverlight/VS2010/.NET4/? Does Silverlight do what ajax does, slightly more real time interactivity without a page refresh? Should I start using expression studio to design my UI, or does VS 2010 have everything a windows form guy needs without resorting to using more than one environment? I'd go to school again, but need food so I can program.
Thanks again for your time in considering my situation, I really appreciate it.
Bob
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
We are moving to a web UI ONLY because Silverlight seems to offer a much richer user experience (I hate that expression) than classic ASP. The learning curve from winforms to SL is HUGE, xaml is a completely different paradigm to what we are used to.
As a first step I would look to replacing your remoting interface with a WCF service. This would allow you to plug any UI onto the service.
Shiny UI and extended functionality are going to be difficult for some time while we get a handle on xaml. We are ignoring Expression Blend until we have the functionality under control.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Mycroft Holmes, for the insightful reply.
Food for thought, taking things in a measured way instead of jumping in.
Speaking of what we tend to hate, as you mentioned about the expression "a richer user experience" - I spent a couple of years, untold hours, trying to get my head around remoting. Then this WCF appears, and do you think I can find an article that tells me in plain english how to move from remoting to WCF? Arrgh.
Also, I don't want to write xaml. I want the mongoose to kill the snakes for me... (Donovan)
Anyway, Bill Burrows, at the MyVBProf site, has some nice tutorials about silverlight, RIA, even MVVM. He demos some redeeming improvements in VS2010 that seem to require a lot less xaml programming. I am using such things to keep my finger in the pie while I figure out what to do with my app.
Thanks again.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't like the xaml then forget RIA, seems to want to move everything into the xaml. Also the latest MS demos seem to lean almost exclusively to EF as the DAL, I find that distressing and chucked the entire RIA concept out.
We are just about finished our MVVM code generator so we should be getting a bit more production.
My first .net book was on Dotnet Remoting, trying to learn dot net and remoting from scratch, what a nightmare. Eventually someone slapped me and pointed me to an ordinary winforms app and I never looked back.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: the latest MS demos seem to lean almost exclusively to EF as the DAL
Sorry, what is EF?
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
MS Enterprise Library, my error.
The slap happened over 10 years ago and it was performed by another senior dev who pointed out that we did not need remote connection as a connectionstring would suffice nicely.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: someone slapped me and pointed me to an ordinary winforms app
If you get a mo, could you point me to some article or resource that exemplifies this experience? I would love to see that too. Slap me !!
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
modified on Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
My question is: why is there such a huge gap?
|
|
|
|
|
GAP?
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say 'gap'. I am assuming you mean why did they make such a big JUMP from all server side based stuff to forcing you all of a sudden to a totally separated model?
I am not sure if there was any other way it could have been done gradually.
If I am not understanding you then let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Cassick wrote: I am assuming you mean why did they make such a big JUMP from all server side based stuff to forcing you all of a sudden to a totally separated model?
Yes, basically. See also my other reply[^].
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: why is there such a huge gap?
Please elaborate on what you mean by gap, since that is probably a question that needs answering.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
