I just saw the latest demo for script.aculo.us, and I have to say, I''m concerned. The AJAX integration in Rails is one of its biggest selling points, but these latest features seem tuned more to script-kiddie demos than professional-looking web applications; they''re the latter-day equivalent of web sites with mouse-cursor trails. There is absolutely no UI value in swiping fade-ins, fade-outs, and (gawd) drop-off letters, and I don''t think that''s the kind of thing that belongs in the Rails core distribution. What we really need is UI elements, like Rico''s LiveGrid and Accordion, or standard Grid and Tree controls, or the inPlaceEditor that 1.5 will bring us. But DropOff and BlindDown? Shake?! That''s not Web 2.0. That''s BLINK and MARQUEE 2.0. I realize this is easy for me to say, as I haven''t contributed a damn thing to the library myself, while Thomas has done simply amazing things with this library and single-handledly contributed to Rails''s increasingly popularity. But, hey, that''s the great thing about the Internet... I don''t have to be qualified to express my opinion! -- Jay Levitt | Wellesley, MA | I feel calm. I feel ready. I can only Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I don''t have a http://www.jay.fm | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler
Remember, guns don''t kill people. People kill people. I wouldn''t be concerned of the direction of prototype, but rather be concerned that more and more programmers think they can do a "good enough" job at designing a UI and that adding a blind-down effect then shaking the browser is a professional effect for adding a new post. _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
I''m in violent agreement here. Those "cute" fade and unfold effects in Microsoft Office, for example, leave me cold. That and it attempting to remember which of the several hundred menu options I actually use and not showing me the one I want to use *next*!! So, just out of curiosity ... what do the UI folks here think of the SymphonyOS UI? http://www.symphonyos.com/ http://www.symphonyos.com/laws.html Kyle Neath wrote:> Remember, guns don''t kill people. People kill people. > > I wouldn''t be concerned of the direction of prototype, but rather be > concerned that more and more programmers think they can do a "good > enough" job at designing a UI and that adding a blind-down effect then > shaking the browser is a professional effect for adding a new post. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >-- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
On 9/2/05, Jay Levitt <jay-news-WxwZQdyI2t0@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I just saw the latest demo for script.aculo.us <http://script.aculo.us>, > and I have to say, I''m > concerned. The AJAX integration in Rails is one of its biggest selling > points, but these latest features seem tuned more to script-kiddie demos > than professional-looking web applications; they''re the latter-day > equivalent of web sites with mouse-cursor trails. There is absolutely > no UI value in swiping fade-ins, fade-outs, and (gawd) drop-off letters, > and I don''t think that''s the kind of thing that belongs in the Rails > core distribution. > > What we really need is UI elements, like Rico''s LiveGrid and Accordion, > or standard Grid and Tree controls, or the inPlaceEditor that 1.5 will > bring us. But DropOff and BlindDown? Shake?! That''s not Web 2.0. > That''s BLINK and MARQUEE 2.0. >I can''t agree enough. That crap is really going into rails? I though the already existing Effects library was bad enough. Chris _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
I put the effects library to very good use in a (AJAX) product we develop. I wouldn''t have made it if I had no use for it. As an example, we put the Shake effect on the login box, when login fails. We''ve sliding in/out property drawers. And so on and so forth. All in all we use effects on 4 or 5 occasions throughout the app where they just make the UI experience much more smooth and enjoyable for the user. The effects also play part in making the script.aculo.us UI controls better, like transparency and reverting on drag-and-drop. Note there''s a AJAX patterns wiki available including thoughts of where and what visual effects can be put to good use[1]. The demos I put up from time to time show what is possible-- not what you should stick in your sites without thinking. If the script kiddies use it, well, I can''t stop them from doing so. :) If you want more discussion on what directions script.aculo.us should take, please consider joining the rails-spinoffs mailing list[2]. Thomas [1] http://ajaxpatterns.org/ [2] http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs Am 03.09.2005 um 04:04 schrieb Jay Levitt:> I just saw the latest demo for script.aculo.us, and I have to say, I''m > concerned. The AJAX integration in Rails is one of its biggest > selling > points, but these latest features seem tuned more to script-kiddie > demos > than professional-looking web applications; they''re the latter-day > equivalent of web sites with mouse-cursor trails. There is absolutely > no UI value in swiping fade-ins, fade-outs, and (gawd) drop-off > letters, > and I don''t think that''s the kind of thing that belongs in the Rails > core distribution. > > What we really need is UI elements, like Rico''s LiveGrid and > Accordion, > or standard Grid and Tree controls, or the inPlaceEditor that 1.5 will > bring us. But DropOff and BlindDown? Shake?! That''s not Web 2.0. > That''s BLINK and MARQUEE 2.0.
> I can''t agree enough. That crap is really going into rails? I though the > already existing Effects library was bad enough.Let me throw in that I can''t disagree enough. Visual effects are an essential part of making the switch to Ajax. Now when we don''t have the browser reloads to acknowledge action, we need a substitute. Visual effects allow us to slow down the action enough for the user to keep up with what''s going on. As an example, BlindDown is used frequently in Basecamp to ease the show/hide appearance. So is Zoom. We use both Appear and Fade on Backpack. Sure it''s possible to misuse the effects. Just like its possible to misuse Ruby''s ability to extend the base classes. But just as we trust your sanity not to redefine how gsub works, we trust your judgement to use effects to good. Rails is not about deciding how your application looks to the end user. So. In my mind, the effects are a much better fit for inclusion in Rails than various components are. They operate at a lower level, stay below the surface so to speak, and leaves the composition up to the designers. -- David Heinemeier Hansson http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework
Ah. You are still a so very sane man David. Good to see. I can't believe that you are complaining so much about this. Who is forcing you to use it? There might be other people with other opinions than yourselves. And if they want to do it what's the problem. We have to, like David said, trust the individual programmer on doing what they and their customers feel is right. Whatever that may be, even if it involves something like hiding rarely used menus. Ronny On 9/3/05, David Heinemeier Hansson <david.heinemeier@gmail.com> wrote:> > > I can't agree enough. That crap is really going into rails? I though the > > already existing Effects library was bad enough. > > Let me throw in that I can't disagree enough. Visual effects are an > essential part of making the switch to Ajax. Now when we don't have > the browser reloads to acknowledge action, we need a substitute. > Visual effects allow us to slow down the action enough for the user to > keep up with what's going on. > > As an example, BlindDown is used frequently in Basecamp to ease the > show/hide appearance. So is Zoom. We use both Appear and Fade on > Backpack. > > Sure it's possible to misuse the effects. Just like its possible to > misuse Ruby's ability to extend the base classes. But just as we trust > your sanity not to redefine how gsub works, we trust your judgement to > use effects to good. Rails is not about deciding how your application > looks to the end user. > > So. In my mind, the effects are a much better fit for inclusion in > Rails than various components are. They operate at a lower level, stay > below the surface so to speak, and leaves the composition up to the > designers. > -- > David Heinemeier Hansson > http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain > http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management > http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager > http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:>Let me throw in that I can''t disagree enough. Visual effects are an >essential part of making the switch to Ajax. Now when we don''t have >the browser reloads to acknowledge action, we need a substitute. >Visual effects allow us to slow down the action enough for the user to >keep up with what''s going on. > >Progress bars -- sure. Little pages of paper flipping across your screen from one folder to another during a 20-minute copy from a network share in Windows -- ridiculous! That''s a personal preference, to be sure, but some of the gimmicks in Windows'' UI are just plain annoying, especially when they''re the *default* and you have to "customize" the "options" to bring some sanity and professionalism to your desktop.>Sure it''s possible to misuse the effects. Just like its possible to >misuse Ruby''s ability to extend the base classes. But just as we trust >your sanity not to redefine how gsub works, we trust your judgement to >use effects to good. Rails is not about deciding how your application >looks to the end user. > >No, Rails isn''t about making such decisions, but application design most certainly *is* about that. If it doesn''t look good, it *isn''t* good. If it looks annoying, it *is* annoying. That''s why I''m thankful there are lots of things you can change in Windows and Office. I would expect Rails to provide the basics and some kind of customization toolkit. And since it''s open source, well, the sky is sort of the limit, isn''t it?>So. In my mind, the effects are a much better fit for inclusion in >Rails than various components are. They operate at a lower level, stay >below the surface so to speak, and leaves the composition up to the >designers. > >Speaking for myself, I''m more complaining about Windows than I am about Rails. I''ve only just started using BaseCamp and haven''t run into anything annoying, and I''ve only started building my own Rails applications. I just think there are better things to spend time on than menus that "fade open" or remember what you did recently or frequently and thus assume that you''ll want to do them next, or feeble attempts at making a 20-minute process "entertaining". -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.borasky-research.net/ http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/ http://pdxneurosemantics.com http://pdx-sales-coach.com http://algocompsynth.com
Ok granted this area is one that comes down to personal opinion, so if most people want it in rails who am I to object. Maybe it''s just the current capabilities of the effects that I dont'' like and they will get better. Chris _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
In article <9B6586EE-B325-4394-B00E-1F4015FA8AB6-9D208sng4xU@public.gmane.org>, thomas- 9D208sng4xU-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org says...> I put the effects library to very good use in a (AJAX) product we > develop. I wouldn''t have made it if I had no use for it. > > As an example, we put the Shake effect on the login box, when login > fails. We''ve sliding in/out property drawers. And so on and so forth. > All in all we use effects on 4 or 5 occasions throughout the app > where they just make the UI experience much more smooth and enjoyable > for the user.Interesting - put to those uses, I can certainly see how the effects could help focus attention on an important control (shake), or literally add depth to a UI (drawers). Any way you could put up a demo showing those functions in their "native environment"? I know I just don''t have the imagination to come up with that. Likewise, if 10 years ago you''d showed me a new library that would draw drop-shadows around a rectangular area, I''d have thought "Sure, that''s nice for 3D games", never thinking about its application in a window manager. I think an awful lot of developers who are not UI designers are going to mimic the uses they see in the demo. Maybe it''s as important to highlight good uses of these effects as it is to code them in the first place... I''d just hate for Rails to get the reputation as "that easy-to-use web framework with all the blinking, moving stuff". I''m checking out the ajaxpatterns site, and it looks pretty interesting, but of course their section on visual effects just points back at your existing demo. -- Jay Levitt | Wellesley, MA | I feel calm. I feel ready. I can only Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I don''t have a http://www.jay.fm | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler
> Interesting - put to those uses, I can certainly see how the effects > could help focus attention on an important control (shake), or literally > add depth to a UI (drawers). > > Any way you could put up a demo showing those functions in their "native > environment"? I know I just don''t have the imagination to come up with > that.Both those examples are adaptations of UI elements in Mac OS X (which I too have shamelessly copied in my apps). So for a demo, check out Mac OS X (the adaptation to the web will be left for you to imagine). Without the use of Ajax, those effects might very well be pointless and over-the-top, but in an Ajaxified interface, lacking the normal browser reload user feedback, as David suggested earlier, those effects are absolutely necessary in order to provide a userfriendly interface. An ajax implementation _without_ those effects would be poor and half-assed. Regards, Tomas Jogin
I''m indifferent on the effects since I rarely use them, however I agree, a decent accordion, grid and tree would be lovely additions. Feel free to code up a proposal and submit it to the spinoffs mailing list. Jay Levitt wrote: > What we really need is UI elements, like Rico''s LiveGrid and Accordion,> or standard Grid and Tree controls, or the inPlaceEditor that 1.5 will > bring us. But DropOff and BlindDown? Shake?! That''s not Web 2.0. > That''s BLINK and MARQUEE 2.0.
On 9/3/05, Tomas Jogin <tomasj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > Interesting - put to those uses, I can certainly see how the effects > > could help focus attention on an important control (shake), or literally > > add depth to a UI (drawers). > > > > Any way you could put up a demo showing those functions in their "native > > environment"? I know I just don''t have the imagination to come up with > > that. > > Both those examples are adaptations of UI elements in Mac OS X (which > I too have shamelessly copied in my apps). So for a demo, check out > Mac OS X (the adaptation to the web will be left for you to imagine).It sounds like imagination is exactly what''s missing here. Since Rails already does so much for us, maybe that could be included in the next release too. ;) These effects are FAR from the blink tag. If one can''t look at the effects, and see a world of capabilities... one might not want to use them. Or one could take the prototype library, and build their own effects as Thomas, and the folks behind Rico did. They''re both based on the original prototype library, and ALL open source, so the "current capabilities" are only limited to your imagination, and coding skills. -- Chris Martin Web Developer Open Source & Web Standards Advocate http://www.chriscodes.com/ _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
In article <93334f20050904174511c0ae37-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>, chriscodes- Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org says...> It sounds like imagination is exactly what''s missing here. Since Rails > already does so much for us, maybe that could be included in the next > release too. ;) > > These effects are FAR from the blink tag. If one can''t look at the effects, > and see a world of capabilities... one might not want to use them.Chris, I was suggesting only that the demo for these effects would be more instructive if it showed them in context, in a UI component, rather than the existing "whee!" demo. That, in turn, might spur Rails developers to include that "world of capabilities" in their own apps. If mine was an inappropriate or silly request, I apologize. -- Jay Levitt | Wellesley, MA | I feel calm. I feel ready. I can only Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I don''t have a http://www.jay.fm | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler
On 9/4/05, Jay Levitt <jay-news-WxwZQdyI2t0@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > In article <93334f20050904174511c0ae37-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>, chriscodes- > Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org says... > > It sounds like imagination is exactly what''s missing here. Since Rails > > already does so much for us, maybe that could be included in the next > > release too. ;) > > > > These effects are FAR from the blink tag. If one can''t look at the > effects, > > and see a world of capabilities... one might not want to use them. > > Chris, > > I was suggesting only that the demo for these effects would be more > instructive if it showed them in context, in a UI component, rather than > the existing "whee!" demo.In your second post, yes, but that did not come across at all in your first post. Aren''t these in context? http://script.aculo.us/demos/ajax/autocompleter_customized http://script.aculo.us/demos/shop Hell, the search box at the bottom of http://script.aculo.us/ shakes on an error. There is pleny of context there, I agree the puzzle game isn''t that useful for your average web application, but it''s an excellent demo of his library. If mine was> an inappropriate or silly request, I apologize.No need to apologize to me, I''d apologize to Thomas for comparing his libraries to the freakin'' BLINK, and MARQUEE tag. THAT is offensive. :) -- Chris Martin Web Developer Open Source & Web Standards Advocate http://www.chriscodes.com/ _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
i think the demo''s are just that... demo''s. if you download a big Java library that does something they usually dont give you 500 demo''s showing you when and how and where to use things in the library. this is up to the user to decide. you being the user of said library (prototype) it is your decision when to see certian features to be a better choice over any of the others. as other people have said, if you dont like it dont use it. now only if so many people complained to MS about customizability ''restraints'' in windows they might have released a *REAL* OS by now. On 9/5/05, Chris Martin <chriscodes-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 9/4/05, Jay Levitt <jay-news-WxwZQdyI2t0@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > In article <93334f20050904174511c0ae37-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>, > chriscodes- > > Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org says... > > > It sounds like imagination is exactly what''s missing here. Since Rails > > > already does so much for us, maybe that could be included in the next > > > release too. ;) > > > > > > These effects are FAR from the blink tag. If one can''t look at the > effects, > > > and see a world of capabilities... one might not want to use them. > > > > Chris, > > > > I was suggesting only that the demo for these effects would be more > > instructive if it showed them in context, in a UI component, rather than > > the existing "whee!" demo. > > In your second post, yes, but that did not come across at all in your first > post. > > Aren''t these in context? > http://script.aculo.us/demos/ajax/autocompleter_customized > http://script.aculo.us/demos/shop > Hell, the search box at the bottom of http://script.aculo.us/ shakes on an > error. > There is pleny of context there, I agree the puzzle game isn''t that useful > for your average web application, but it''s an excellent demo of his library. > > > If mine was > > an inappropriate or silly request, I apologize. > > No need to apologize to me, I''d apologize to Thomas for comparing his > libraries to the freakin'' BLINK, and MARQUEE tag. THAT is offensive. :) > > > -- > Chris Martin > Web Developer > Open Source & Web Standards Advocate > http://www.chriscodes.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >-- Zachery Hostens <zacheryph-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>