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?
I am NOT putting my signature in this stupid little box! How do I know you won't steal my identity???
I think the answer to all of IE's problems is to give it MORE access to my PC.
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
Before people start complaining, it is important to remember that google maps is still at this juncture considered beta.
Who's complaining? The software works remarkably well and is probably one of the most innovative web applications ever. The fact that it requires no client side program and that it works so incredibly smooth is what makes it amazing...
Yeah, it's not as great as it could be but they are currently taking the appropriate steps to make sure that it continues to lead the field (i.e. the API).
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.
One thing where MSIE excels over Firefox is exactly providing totally unrestricted access to all the system resources of the client's system, for any website developer/programmer, even without need for confirmation from the user. Although Microsoft swears by God that this feature will be removed from IE7...
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
For all the Slash-Love Google gets here, I think it's important to point out that a company whose sole revenue model is advertising is advocating more control of system resources through the browser. I think Google's business model is too often overlooked here.
to the limit!
No, Vern. They just let him in.
And to begin today's Google worship service, please open to page 152 of your hymnal. Let's begin
"Amaaaaazing Google.... is a search engine
That helps a geek like meeeeeeee
Iiiii once was lost, in the interweb
But now you've show the waaay
T'was Sergey who made the Google god
And Larry who helped him ooooout
How precious was that interface
So simple yet so compleeeeeeet
Through many popups, porn and 404's,
We have already brooooowsed
T'was Google that brought us safe thus far
and Google will lead us home.
Google has promised more to me
Like gmail, maps and blogs.
They own all of our web dayayata
But Google "does no evil"
When we've been browsing for ten hours
and don't know how to thinnnnnnk
we'll log onto Slashdot again
to hear more about Goooooogle."
-- Pastor Google
"Slashdot -- Serving freethinkers since never"
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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?
Having developed all kinds of web apps since '96 for the exact reasons given in the article (simply the most convenient platform for distributed applications) I have learned that "that browsers don't give programmers full access to a computer's resources such as memory, process power and hard disk space" is not the most limiting aspect of web app development.
The most limiting aspect comes from one of the web's strengths, that it's based on a very simple request-response protocol. This means that you can't update the browser from the server. Instead of the server sending an event to the browser when something needs to change in the user interface, the UI needs to regularly ask the server if anything has changed. The consequence is the irritating, frequent page updates in web chats and similar applications, and "unnecessary" consumption of bandwidth.
This is why you need to use Java or Flash for more advanced applications. Then you can do pretty much anything, but the client also gets a whole lot thicker, and you can't use the web UI API shared by all browsers (form widgets, basically), which is one of the reasons web apps are so convenient to make.
I'm not saying this is something that should be "fixed," the request-response protocol is generally a good thing (and very unlikely to change anyway). I'm just saying that this is the big difference between designing web apps and desktop applications.
I'm sure Google has some sort of web based webbrowser in the pipeline. Wait...