Slashdot Mirror

>the animated watch hands, for example
This is actually incredibly easy to do.

HTML "textures" have been around for a very long time now.
JSgraphics is a very good library for such a thing, even has animation support.
And canvas tag could do this even easier.

But yes, i do agree, that website is actually very nicely done, great integration with the actual browser.
A site done in Flash in that way is incredibly rare, though.

If only MS would add support for SVG and CANVAS. Take a look at this comparison chart:
http://www.naxos-software.de/blog/index.php?/archives/45-Interactive-Cross-Browser-Vector-Graphics-on-Top-of-SVG,-VML,-Canvas,-Silverlight-using-Dojos-GFX.html
But MS is rather going for Silverlight as their answer to Flash. Just like that ASP.NET was MS's answer to the internet (it was not working).
As of today Flash does the job while Silverlight might in a couple of years if ever.
Never the less having to rely on third party plugins always sucks.
.
However thanks to initiatives like dojo gfx and others. It is possible to have drawing capabilities with DHTML and pure javascript.
The approach is to wrap the current browsers supported drawing API like SVG, CANVAS or VML. Check the link below. See the Link section in above link.
.
A primitive but practical approach to get (simple) drawing capabilities is making your own drawing library that paints using the good old div tag.
I know that it sounds ridiculous, but Walter Zorn have made a quite useful library, that some use for charts, diagrams, rounded corners etc. See below link.
http://www.walterzorn.com/jsgraphics/jsgraphics_e.htm#performance
.
It would be nice if all the browser vendors would sit down and agree on a very simple drawing API, that would make it possible to draw polygons and primitives and do translations in a cross browser environment.
And then compete on the more advanced plugins for those who need it (the add business who makes annoying banners).
Right now the most experienced and stubborn developers can get around without having to bother with plugins by hacking their own libraries or using open-source alternatives.
Over time libraries like dojo gfx will translate into new standard gfx API's that I guess will help MS to join the rest of the world and become part of the internet.
.
Someone please try to talk some sense into MS next time you meet :)
Just tell them that they are losing the internet battle.

Here's some examples of what it can do in the way of previewing and rendering:

Scaling: Javascript image scaling
Color Saturation: Javascript color saturation preview
Drawing: Javascript drawing primatives

Those are cool, but this is just useful:

Javascript vector graphic library
http://www.walterzorn.com/jsgraphics/jsgraphics_e. htm

What, you mean a multi-gigahertz monster can perform a similar task to my 8MHz, half-megabyte Atari ST of years gone by?

Wait, I know - let's try some basic page layout tasks like drawing lines and ellipses. My Atari ST could manage that (it could also do full WYSIWYG with TrueType fonts rotated to arbitrary angles, bezier curves and assorted other vector type stuff) - it's a bit harder in DHTML/AJAX without SVG, which is admittedly very promising but still a bit ... experimental.

DHTML/AJAX might have brightened up previously dismal, static websites no end, but they results are still not up to the standard of software running natively. Compare Google Maps with Google Earth, Gmail with Mail.app, Flikr with iPhoto, one of the aforementioned web office tools with, ooh, Adobe inDesign or something like that.

If we split OpenOffice along its presentation/processing tiers, turning those APIs into XML/HTTP, we can have pools of OpenOffice servers accessed by AJAX clients. Let's see MS WebOffice compete with that.

Please don't.

So far, I haven't seen anyone manage a proper, pixel-perfect page layout or drawing program with AJAX - people seem to pee themselves with excitement when they manage to get Javascript to draw basic lines and circles.

I'd like to see someone implement, say, Google Earth (not Maps) in AJAX, or Adobe Photoshop. If you desperately needed network transparency then the prehistoric X11 and GLX wouldn't break a sweat running such kinds of programs remotely, whereas AJAX wouldn't know where to begin.

This AJAX thing is a buzzword for an interesting and useful technique for making existing web applications a bit more dynamic and responsive (it's ideal for email or database-type tasks) - it's not some glorious new application framework which will revolutionise the whole computing world. Computers can do far more, and it seems ridiculous to have to limit new software to the tiny little niche it provides.

Heh, this guy developed his own cross-platform JavaScript VectorGraphics library, that outputs everything as DHTML statically positioned DIV blocks...
Does lines, circle, elipses...
Impressive, but tends to slow down your browser, somewhat.

One of the things I liked about the site was the Dynamic HTML summary that pops up when you place your cursor over the state. It turns out he uses a script written by Walter Zorn, but removes the notice information and doesn't give him credit for it.

Disappointing, considering his line of work.

Actually, I finally found the ultimate DHTML implementation for this concept: Check it out!

Just a proof (if needed) that my poor little implementation sucks big time ;-)

Still some performance issues, but really good stuff otherwise. And the fact that it does works in all browsers is invaluable!!!

This does not replace VML in my mind, but complete it. I see it as a reasonnable fallback if we ever have to support browser != than IE5+. That just validate that the lightweight approach can be cross-browser.

Let me know your thoughts on this one.

know DOM!

Sorry, that didn't came out right.

The poster was asking what ways to create charts for the web

I know, I am the poster ;-)

I actually found a library that does all that you describe in a more "optimized" way. Very cool in fact: Check it out

The drawback is the performances, of course. Got to keep your graphs simple...

Overkill because of Java. If you need that, better use a Javascript based library like the following one:
http://www.walterzorn.com/jsgraphics/jsgraphics_e. htm

Then you might want to try this library

The DIVs doesn't have to be generated on the server side, but on the client side through DHTML.

Given all that, who are the poor sods downloading and installing Netscape?? I guess they have enough knowledge of computers to be able to install an alternative to IE, but not enough to be able to know about Mozilla? Can there really be more than a handfull of these people, and can't they be rescued and re-educated?

Actually, many of us that prefere Netscape to Mozilla are *well* aware of the differences, and value and appriciate those differences. We are most certainly NOT in need of either "rescue" or "reeducation". We run the stable version!

As I've mentioned before, just having bookmarks available in the Netscape sidebar is enough reason to choose it. It's easy to strip out AIM and the like - takes under a minute, and I bet even most 133t hax0rs here on /. could handle it.

Further, Netscape is considerably more stable than Mozilla (especially on Windows, which is the preferred desktop even for most people here (ask Taco for his logs...)) Mozilla is (and is intended as) a development platform - it's good at that. From what I've seen, the Mozilla releases recieve far less testing and bug-fixing than Netscape performs in their "equivalents". This testing is the reason Netscape releases typically lag their Mozilla counterparts by a fair margin - we got lucky this time and Mozilla 1.4 and Netscape 7.1 are out almost simultaneously only because the Mozilla folks declared RC3 to be v1.4.

In addition there are other good resons to prefer Netscape: The Developer Pack alone is a great reason. If you're doing web page development and taking advantage of JavaScript the way you should, you *need* Venkman and the rest - these are serioous power tools.

If you are using the DOM (and if not, you darn sure should be) you'll find the DOM inspector handy, too.

For those that think JavaScript is a toy language and not suitable for anything real, have a look again - a lot has changed in the past few years, and pure JavaScript is now even the best alternative to SVG, since that is a great idea, but not supported in any mainstream browser, unlike Javascript. Like it or not, JavaScript is the lingua franca of the web, and Netscape does it best.

Finally, even those that like Mozilla should support Netscape by recommending it to less tech-savvy friends. NOt only is it more stable than Mozilla, but doing so supports Netscape, the company whose money is behind over 90% of the commited changes to the Mozilla code base. I view using Netscape as something akin to buying boxed copies of Red Hat or Mandrake - I don't have to, but it's an important show of support. I'm continually amazed at the number of people here on /. willing to spew vitriol at AOl, but claim to love Mozilla. The simple fact is that Mozilla would have died several years ago without Netscape's very substantial commitment of time, money, and most importantly, programmer resources. I thank Netscape for paying those programmers good salaries, rather than making them wait tables for tips as in Richard Stallman's infamous quote: "Programmers should work as waiters so they can give their code away". I for one hope to never have to run code that is developed by an oppressed waiter who ought to have a real job writing code.

Althogether, there are plenty of good reasons to prefer Netscape to Mozilla, and I for one, am not eager to have unstable Mozilla software destroy valuable personal data like e-mails and bookmarks files, somethign that has happened to me several times with various Mozilla releases, but never with any Netscape release. If you want to live on the bleeding edge, fine, but it's irresponsible to encourage others to do likewise, and rude and insulting to assume anyone that prefers a stable browsing environment lacks common sense.