The best-case scenario for RIA developers is to have a single code base that has multiple profiles for publishing to different devices. Adobe is using Flash Builder for this exact scenario. FB 4.5 allows a developer to have multiple profiles for Android, iPhone, iPad, numerous other tablets, Web, etc....
Also, Adobe AIR SDK 2.7 really improves the performance of SWF apps published for iOS devices and other devices in general. There is a noticeable difference. I think that Adobe still has a very relevant future in rich internet applications.
I'm not sure about other developers, but I'd rather write my app in a single language and then deploy it to every platform I want to publish to.
The main attraction of the PNG format for use in web development is the alpha layer, which makes the saved PNG a 32-bit per pixel image (8-bits for R/G/B/A). The quality of a transparent PNG is so much better than the quality of a transparent GIF b/c each pixel of the GIF has to be a color - there can't be any alpha values. So unless the transparent image you need is going to be on a mostly-the-same-color background, a transparent GIF is useless.
It is not feasible that you can take a GIF or JPG and convert it to a transparent PNG and have the same file size, especially if the file size of the GIF or JPG is pretty large. 32-bit is the lowest you can save out a transparent PNG (if there is a way to save it out lower, please let me know).
I DO think that it's worth the file size increase to use PNGs on websites whose designs required transparency in alot of places. Otherwise, I'm not sure the advantage of using PNGs in everyday situations. If the image is photo-like, use compressed JPGs. If it's full of text (and can't be HTML text), use the lowest amount of colors possible for a respectable-looking GIF.
I just started using Firefox and more than half of the downloads I've done are bad. Movies won't play, programs won't run, etc. I download them through IE and they work fine. I get no error messages and the file sizes are correct. I tried the forums, with no luck, so I had to uninstall it. If the downloads are bad it's certainly no good to me. Firefox doesn't work for everyone.
Half of the downloads are bad? Sounds like user-error to me. There is no way THAT many downloads are wrong. He probably doesn't have the plugins to play them, and he's too freakin' lazy to click the "Click here to install plugin" link where the plugin should be. Is he misusing the term "download" to include those actions performed while streaming a movie to a plugin, such as quicktime? As for the download SIZE he was talking about, perhaps since when he clickd the "CLICK HERE TO VIEW MOVIE" link, it doesn't work, so he tries right-clicking and "SAVE TO DISK". This, in effect, would save a html page rather than a movie, if the link is directly accessing the media file. The file size WOULD be off since he downloaded a 2KB html page. If you try dragging that to WMP, I'm pretty sure you're NOT going to be seeing what you expect.
I really like howsome journalists can be very selective in choosing the reader reviews that they receive.
I totally agree. If you're designing for a customer base (not a business base), you should NOT have html pages that are over ~50-75KB. I am not sure about the % of homes with broadband, but I don't think that it's over 30%. I think it was noted by somebody that the average user will spend 8 seconds waiting for a page to load. Even if a 56kbps user has a GREAT connection speed of 6KB/s, a 75KB page will take about 12 seconds to load.
All too often I see sites that make me wait, even when I'm on a fast connection. ESPN is a good example. They have a nice-looking and supposedly standards-compliant site, but sometimes it takes extremely long time (in a broadband sense) to load. If the site is bogged down and is slow to respond, I'll go check out another sports news site.
A good site for checking that your site is optimized is the Web Page Analyzer. The tool goes into great detail that may seem a tad too strict, but you can take the information with a grain of salt.
I like the look of OSX. No, I LOVE the look. Everything is so refreshingly appealing to the eye. I like the built-in capability of 128px icons. I like the dock. However, I can get icon sets and other nice, colorful, appeasing items for XP Prof. Hell, I can get OSX imitation themes for it.
I work with a bunch of designers (I'm a devloper), and I am on a Mac probably 2 times a week for a few hours. I don't feel overwhelmed enough by OSX to actually switch to Apple. I use an XP Prof. machine, and I NEVER have any problems with it. It has failed on me maybe 1 time in the past 6 months. Maybe. My coworker has a Mac, and it freezes on him probably 2 times a week. Freezes in a manner than doesn't allow him to do anything besides restart. I just sorta laugh to myself, and continue working.
Maybe I'll switch in the future, but I just couldn't bring myself to spend 2500 on a 15" Powerbook when the only thing that I admire about OSX is the "prettiness". I spent 1700 on a HP zt3000, and got pretty much all of the same features for, oh, about 800 less.
Just my 2 cents. I really don't have anything against Apple, and I'm glad that they're taking market share from Microsoft. But when I have a perfectly good AND CLEAN XP OS, I can't bring myself to fork over the extra "style" money required to use an Apple.
Philip J. Kaplan has a site that was made to follow the dotcom bubble burst by keeping track of all companies that went bye-bye. He wrote a book that I am sure many of you have read. It's basically the 'worst of the worst' businesses that couldn't take MILLIONS of dollars and turn a profit. It's a darn good read.
I went to see the midnight premier of AOTC at the Lennox 24 in Columbus. We arrived at 1100, and the doors were locked. The line to get in extended around the back of the lennox, and wrapped around the backs of all of the shopping center stores. It ended at target and started doubling itself back to the beginning. I'd say it was almost a 1/4 mile long. Just imagine the lines at the concessions and the 20 minute wait to get out of the parking lot at 330am. AOTC was showing on 12 screens, so there was around 5,000 there. Amazing, but it couldn't beat spider-man's opening day sales (or harry potter's for that matter).
Slashdot Mirror
Apple briefly banned the ability to code iOS apps using 3rd party dev tools, but then relaxed the restrictions: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/09/apple_no_longer_banning_third_party_ios_development_tools.html
The best-case scenario for RIA developers is to have a single code base that has multiple profiles for publishing to different devices. Adobe is using Flash Builder for this exact scenario. FB 4.5 allows a developer to have multiple profiles for Android, iPhone, iPad, numerous other tablets, Web, etc....
Also, Adobe AIR SDK 2.7 really improves the performance of SWF apps published for iOS devices and other devices in general. There is a noticeable difference. I think that Adobe still has a very relevant future in rich internet applications.
I'm not sure about other developers, but I'd rather write my app in a single language and then deploy it to every platform I want to publish to.
The main attraction of the PNG format for use in web development is the alpha layer, which makes the saved PNG a 32-bit per pixel image (8-bits for R/G/B/A). The quality of a transparent PNG is so much better than the quality of a transparent GIF b/c each pixel of the GIF has to be a color - there can't be any alpha values. So unless the transparent image you need is going to be on a mostly-the-same-color background, a transparent GIF is useless.
It is not feasible that you can take a GIF or JPG and convert it to a transparent PNG and have the same file size, especially if the file size of the GIF or JPG is pretty large. 32-bit is the lowest you can save out a transparent PNG (if there is a way to save it out lower, please let me know).
I DO think that it's worth the file size increase to use PNGs on websites whose designs required transparency in alot of places. Otherwise, I'm not sure the advantage of using PNGs in everyday situations. If the image is photo-like, use compressed JPGs. If it's full of text (and can't be HTML text), use the lowest amount of colors possible for a respectable-looking GIF.
Half of the downloads are bad? Sounds like user-error to me. There is no way THAT many downloads are wrong. He probably doesn't have the plugins to play them, and he's too freakin' lazy to click the "Click here to install plugin" link where the plugin should be. Is he misusing the term "download" to include those actions performed while streaming a movie to a plugin, such as quicktime? As for the download SIZE he was talking about, perhaps since when he clickd the "CLICK HERE TO VIEW MOVIE" link, it doesn't work, so he tries right-clicking and "SAVE TO DISK". This, in effect, would save a html page rather than a movie, if the link is directly accessing the media file. The file size WOULD be off since he downloaded a 2KB html page. If you try dragging that to WMP, I'm pretty sure you're NOT going to be seeing what you expect.
I really like howsome journalists can be very selective in choosing the reader reviews that they receive.
I totally agree. If you're designing for a customer base (not a business base), you should NOT have html pages that are over ~50-75KB. I am not sure about the % of homes with broadband, but I don't think that it's over 30%. I think it was noted by somebody that the average user will spend 8 seconds waiting for a page to load. Even if a 56kbps user has a GREAT connection speed of 6KB/s, a 75KB page will take about 12 seconds to load.
All too often I see sites that make me wait, even when I'm on a fast connection. ESPN is a good example. They have a nice-looking and supposedly standards-compliant site, but sometimes it takes extremely long time (in a broadband sense) to load. If the site is bogged down and is slow to respond, I'll go check out another sports news site.
A good site for checking that your site is optimized is the Web Page Analyzer. The tool goes into great detail that may seem a tad too strict, but you can take the information with a grain of salt.
I like the look of OSX. No, I LOVE the look. Everything is so refreshingly appealing to the eye. I like the built-in capability of 128px icons. I like the dock. However, I can get icon sets and other nice, colorful, appeasing items for XP Prof. Hell, I can get OSX imitation themes for it.
I work with a bunch of designers (I'm a devloper), and I am on a Mac probably 2 times a week for a few hours. I don't feel overwhelmed enough by OSX to actually switch to Apple. I use an XP Prof. machine, and I NEVER have any problems with it. It has failed on me maybe 1 time in the past 6 months. Maybe. My coworker has a Mac, and it freezes on him probably 2 times a week. Freezes in a manner than doesn't allow him to do anything besides restart. I just sorta laugh to myself, and continue working.
Maybe I'll switch in the future, but I just couldn't bring myself to spend 2500 on a 15" Powerbook when the only thing that I admire about OSX is the "prettiness". I spent 1700 on a HP zt3000, and got pretty much all of the same features for, oh, about 800 less.
Just my 2 cents. I really don't have anything against Apple, and I'm glad that they're taking market share from Microsoft. But when I have a perfectly good AND CLEAN XP OS, I can't bring myself to fork over the extra "style" money required to use an Apple.
Philip J. Kaplan has a site that was made to follow the dotcom bubble burst by keeping track of all companies that went bye-bye. He wrote a book that I am sure many of you have read. It's basically the 'worst of the worst' businesses that couldn't take MILLIONS of dollars and turn a profit. It's a darn good read.
I went to see the midnight premier of AOTC at the Lennox 24 in Columbus. We arrived at 1100, and the doors were locked. The line to get in extended around the back of the lennox, and wrapped around the backs of all of the shopping center stores. It ended at target and started doubling itself back to the beginning. I'd say it was almost a 1/4 mile long. Just imagine the lines at the concessions and the 20 minute wait to get out of the parking lot at 330am. AOTC was showing on 12 screens, so there was around 5,000 there. Amazing, but it couldn't beat spider-man's opening day sales (or harry potter's for that matter).