Opencroquet

zymano writes "OSnews has some information about Opencroquet, a 3d operating system worked on by Alan Kay, who also is one of the inventors of Smalltalk, one of the fathers of object oriented programming, conceiver of the laptop computer, inventor of much of the modern windowing GUI. The OS is a 3D environment running through the Squeak environment on top of another operating system. It requires a supported 3D accelerator. Squeak is an interpreted language similar to Smalltalk. Could be ssslooooww. Way cool screenshot."

Comments

Re:Flash?

[thatguywhoiam]

Well, we're getting OT, but what the hell.

Flash as navigation? It allows you to completely destroy the usability of the site. Middle click to open in a new window? Gone. Right click to select "open in new tab"? Gone. Tab through links? Gone (or possibly there if somebody using flash has a clue, unlikely). Typeahead finding a link? Gone.

You're right, but for a particular instance. See, I suspect you are a technical person (coder, engineer, or possibly researcher, or all 3. whatever). You spend a great deal of time searching on the web, which is what a lot of people do. You like your standard tools for searching and arranging your information. Flash sites disable many of these tools.

Problem with this is, that Flash site should either A) not exist as a Flash site, or B) you're forcing a site to do what it doesn't want to do.

A Flash site with its own interface is just dandy for certain applications, mostly those having to do with marketing, or presentation, or conceptual visualization. Remember that Flash is just a clever animation, like Director was; it is essentially linear, with stops-and-starts, and GOTOs.

Besides, I would argue that I have found at least as many HTML sites abusing JavaScript and bad design in their navigation as Flash sites. Flash just has the capacity to do more damage. The pwoer of Flash is not a flaw.

When I have a client that tells me they want a specific font, and sound effects, and a 3d spin-around of their new shoe (for example), I say Flash every time. It's the best choice. It's a commerical, a glossy interactive brochure. It can look like any damn thing it wants.

If it was a site for weekend trips, for example, thats a PHP site with little Flash demos that launch in windows. That way you get Flash presentations (what its meant for), with searchable, right-clickable, parsable HTML content in the right framework.

My point is, don't blame the tech, and don't blame Flash for crappy navigation. It has it's place; it belongs in exploratory interfaces, not useful ones. This is of course not to say that exploratory != useful, but in situations where one wants to immerse themselves and casually browse a rich experience with sound, the right fonts, and a generally superior (depending...) experience, Flash is great.

If its something like Slashdot, or the Beeb, or SourceForge (heh, can you imagine?).. not so much.

Oh by the way, indexing is not a problem. And stylesheets, as cool as they are, cannot compete with absolute sub-pixel vector positioning. Not to mention, as a web designer, I have far less problems debugging a Flash site between browsers, as the plug-in is more consistent than the HTML engine.

Re:Flash?

[JimDabell]

You like your standard tools for searching and arranging your information. Flash sites disable many of these tools.

I agree. And I am a technical person. But it affects average users even more than me. If you take away the consistency of the interface, newbies will flounder. It's a fact, plenty of studies have been done on it - it's basic usability. Sure, they might notice different inconsistencies to me, but the effect is the same or worse.

A Flash site with its own interface is just dandy for certain applications, mostly those having to do with marketing, or presentation, or conceptual visualization.

I agree completely. But for a general-purpose website, for navigation - no way.

When I have a client that tells me they want a specific font, and sound effects

Clients ask for these kinds of things all the time. I say:

• You can suggest a specific font, but if it's an unusual font, most people will see one of the more common fonts. Some people will override your font completely because they find another font easier to read. Which "normal" font do you want to use as a fallback? Not to mention the discussion of serif vs sans-serif and so on...
• Sound can be highly irritating for many end-users, especially if they aren't expecting it. Virtually no high-profile business websites use sound, so unless there is a domain-specific reason for having sound, I would recommend against it. If there is a good reason for having sound, I would recommend that it not be activated automatically.

Of course, you can supply your own fonts with flash. Do sounds and specific fonts compare to removing the consistency of the user experience? No way. As for the next point:

and a 3d spin-around of their new shoe (for example), I say Flash every time.

Yes, something that needs this kind of interactivity (I'm assuming that you can zoom in, etc) would be a candidate for using flash, with a static image fallback. No way would I animate something like that on pageload though. Animations of that nature should begin animation when the user activates it (at least, when it's a looping animation).

It's a commerical, a glossy interactive brochure.

Advertising on the net is fundamentally different to "commercials". Media like TV are find for that kind of thing, it's non-interactive. The internet is user-driven, and when surfing, people are incredible task-oriented. A "glossy interactive brochure" exists on a website for one reason - to let the visitors get the information, and perhaps to order from it.

When flash helps that goal, I say go for it. Can a user get a better idea of what the product is like with a zooming, 3d model of it? In some cases, yes. Does it hinder the user (page load time, plugin popups, non-standard interface) without any real benefit? In a hell of a lot of cases, yes.

There are plenty of design agencies out there offering flash as an added benefit for extra money. Of course they will recommend it, even if it doesn't help their client in any way.

My point is, don't blame the tech, and don't blame Flash for crappy navigation.

I agree, I never said otherwise. But website navigation with flash is usually an abuse of flash - I've certainly never seen an appropriate use of flash in this way.

in situations where one wants to immerse themselves and casually browse a rich experience with sound, the right fonts, and a generally superior (depending...) experience, Flash is great.

Very few websites fall into this category. Very few users go to a site, and want to sit back and watch a commercial. They have a purpose, and it's the website's job to give them the information they need. Websites that don't do that are measurably less successful than those that do.

Oh by the way, indexing is not a problem.

No, if you provide alternate navigation that isn't flash-based. Most people clueless enough to use flash for navigation are clueless enough to not realise they need to do this. I know of no search engine that parses, or even retrieves, swf files.

And stylesheets, as cool as they are, cannot compete with absolute sub-pixel vector positioning.

You are merely picking one attribute of flash and claiming that stylesheets cannot compete because of it? Please explain what "absolute sub-pixel vector positioning" means, and why it is useful. Then explain how I can override it in my browser to get the look that I want.

Not to mention, as a web designer, I have far less problems debugging a Flash site between browsers, as the plug-in is more consistent than the HTML engine.

Which plug-in? You know there's more than one, right? Personally, I routinely disabled flash on all my machines, because there was a bug that hung my browser whenever flash tried to access the audio device. I only enable it when I absolutely have to (usually, I just go to a different website). I can think of a single website I visit on a (semi) regular basis that uses flash, and it provides a non-flash interface too. Guess which I find more convenient?

Oh, and as an example of how sound on a website can be irritating, visit this at work: Top 10 Cutest Kittens. Actually, don't visit it at work, I don't want to get you fired :)