Slashdot Mirror
Google Maps Creator Takes Browsers To The Limit
An anonymous reader writes "Addressing a crowd of developers in Sydney today, Google Maps creator Lars Rasmussen encouraged them to embrace bleeding edge technology in browser software. He cited the example of how Google Maps can command Internet Explorer to use VML (Vector Markup Language by Microsoft) to display a blue line between geographical points, but use a PNG graphic format and a linear description for the Firefox browser." From the article: "Firstly, the Web allows rapid deployment and there is no software for users to install. It's also much easier to make sure code runs on multiple browsers compared with multiple operating systems like Mac OS X and Windows. The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained."
The downside is that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space. This is a bottleneck the engineer sees being removed in future, although he thinks the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained.
;-)
Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place? The fact that malicious code could be executed client side by attackers through websites? I have a feeling that either the quote isn't written in its entirety or was modified in some way that changed what Rasmussen originally intended. I really doubt that someone of his level wouldn't acknowledge the dangers in doing what that quote proposes.
"It's quite good," he grudgingly admitted.
Luckily Google came out with it first so Microsoft again looks like the one copying what others are doing - right?
Before people start complaining, it is important to remember that google maps is still at this juncture considered beta. Of course it has some bugs; that's inherent in the "beta" distinction. Surely, though, we ought to be suitably impressed by the progress made by google. Until they came along, we had few real innovators.
I am NOT putting my signature in this stupid little box! How do I know you won't steal my identity???
But the real issue here is "the simplicity of the current Web browsing experience needs to be maintained". Thin clients, security, cross-platform compatibility and consistency... these are the driving factors for the new Internet. As more and more people move to W3C standards, etc... Microsoft will lose their strangelhold on the market that has been littered with alternate, proprietary technologies that no one wants and no one really needs (ActiveX, .NET, Microsoft BOB [:)] and join the rest of the world. Microsoft is not going anywhere anytime soon, but they can't grow by being different from the other 10% (and climbing) of the market. The browser may be the great equalizer.
So Microsoft initially missed the boat on the Internet. They go on to spend enormous sums of money to destroy Netscape and win the browser war. Once the war is over, what do they do? Nothing. They let the technology stagnate. It ends up being a 3rd company, Google, a non-participant in the browser war who comes along and pushes the envelope. What was the point of Microsoft trying so hard to destroy another company and take over the market? I think Google's play nice strategy is paying more dividends than MS's destroy all competitor strategy.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
yes, his advice is sound, and his work backs it up.
but using bleeding edge technology on browsers is much harder for a lonely coder / small team. how much money / time / man hours do you think google had to get around the fact that ie can use VML and firefox png + a linear description?
I am leaning towards things like Ajax for my future web devel. Look at the way 'Google Sugest' or even the spellcheck in Gmail works; it's feels like it's a desktop app, there's no pausing to download a plugin or anything. Bringing more of a desktop response to web apps is going to be where it's at in the future, and I think Ajax is the one to watch.
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
Isn't that what started the downfall of browsers in the first place? The fact that malicious code could be executed client side by attackers through websites?
Define "downfall". Web usage isn't exactly declining, malicious code or no.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
Yeah, we overlook it alright. But that's mainly because they have another clause in their business model; "Do no evil".
This includes ads that are so unobtrusive I often overlook them unless I'm actually searching for a product.
So, as their sole revenue model might be advertising, they have yet to have a single ugly popup ad, flashing image screaming "CLICK ME", Flash banner ad, or javascript/css to resize the webbrowser or display those oh so annoying CSS frame-over ads. They're extremely good at advertising, better than most newspapers in my opinion.
So before you get your Google-hating panties in a wad, take a step back and look at what Google's doing for the general consumer.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If you "embrace bleeding edge technology", don't come crying when you get cut by it. Bleeding edge technology tends to mean just that, it is not as reliable as traditional technology.
...", however, your customers probably won't get your point, when "the rest of the web", "just works."
When your application crashes 20% of your customer's browsers, you can of course say, "But that's not my problem. They should have upgraded to the latest version of the browser, and
It would be nice if they supported SVG. Sure its not native in most browsers yet, but its on its way and in the meantime there is Adobe's SVG plugin. Opera has support, Firefox should have it by 1.5 and KHTML has it in the works.
SVG is a W3C approved standard. Adobe has more marketing oriented description of the technology.
Other than Microsoft is anyone else using VML?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
IE already has this "install on demand" where a user has to confirm to allow a certain application to be installed via the browser.
The problem is though, many clueless users click the thing that makes it go away (cause they were promised something good before they clicked a link) which is the accept option. (certainly on pages which are persisting and force a page-reload until the user confirms) Allowing things to be installed which rather shouldn't be allowed.
A confirmationbox wont ever prompt you "Would you want to allow us to take over your system and do bad things with your PC?" "yes" - "no"
(many users would hit the "yes" if they were told they'd get a nice game in place for it, or that MSN will send 0.01$ to a sick child somewhere in a place unknown if they click the "yes" option.)
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
No. Many users never become un-stupid. I don't say "smarter", because many of the stupidest users are smart people - doctors, lawyers, etc - that feel they shouldn't *have* to learn, and often take a point of pride that they haven't learned it and instead can command someone else to fix it.
Much like many people, for whatever reason, take pride in the fact that they never conquered math.
The world in general will remain stupid; you have to code around it.
This "blame the user" mentality is a major factor in why so much software sucks. Whatever the system, if most users of that system do the wrong thing, it's the SYSTEM's fault!
Like it or not, computer users' environment is one where they are asked repeatedly to confirm things unnecessarily. Probably hundreds of times a day for some. Of course uers will stop reading the messages and just click OK, that's the rational thing to do.
To steal a formula from the US defense secretary, we need to design systems to work for the users we have, not the users we would like to have.
What's a sig?
Now I'm not completely against the idea of using some sort of file writing, but I think it's going to have to be of the most restricted degree. No writing to the registry, no writing to any sort of system directory, perhaps restricted simply to XML and plain text. Even then, I would imagine that unless the programmers are exceedingly cautious, holes would end up in the code. Something like that would have to be done with the greatest care, and at this point, considering the flaws that are on browsers already, I don't know if I want them to have the native ability to write to my filesystem.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It really depends on the type of user IMO.
I've developed quite some professional software packages. The users to-be are involved in the process as they will have to work with the system. You just don't want them to lose time and get frustrated cause your software doesn't feel intuitive or has unnecessary confirmations or steps to have a simple action done. (which action might occur quite frequent in a day. It starts as a small frustration and eventually they HATE the thing, yet are forced to keep using it cause it has cost alot to design. Which could've been just a simple placement of a button or some 20 extra lines of code for you.)
But mostly they KNOW what they want and how they want it... And are willing to read through your manual to in the end work more efficient and save resources.
Joe doesn't seem to be willing for that. The "target user" and their desires is as well a more illusive subject when it comes to internet applications which are going to be used by millions or billions.
The whole "security"-aspect as well has spawn these applications which try to dumb down terminology, in an attempt to have Joe decide on complex actions to who the concept of that action in completely lost.
My tutor taught me; "If you design software, always take in account that a user will do everything he or she can do wrong, but never make them feel they're mothered by your application. Mother them without them knowing.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1