Comments on: AjaxSketch…zzzzzzzz http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/ Startup and Technology News Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:08:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Jeff Roberts http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-67896 Jeff Roberts Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:41:30 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-67896 XUL-lite or XFORMS on Swing - that's what I'm looking for at the moment. We have data we want to be able to configure from either a WebApp or from a Swing Thick App, and we want to send the same UI representation to either. I'm surprised not to find more of this out there - reminds me of the pre-Java days when we were trying to write apps that ran on both Unix and Windows by abstracting out the UI and writing plugins for each OS. (What? Oh, I'm 41. Why?) :-) XUL-lite or XFORMS on Swing - that’s what I’m looking for at the moment. We have data we want to be able to configure from either a WebApp or from a Swing Thick App, and we want to send the same UI representation to either. I’m surprised not to find more of this out there - reminds me of the pre-Java days when we were trying to write apps that ran on both Unix and Windows by abstracting out the UI and writing plugins for each OS. (What? Oh, I’m 41. Why?) :-)

]]> By: Roger http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-25122 Roger Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:02:00 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-25122 Hisham El-Emam is one of the developers behind this. Check out.... http://sliver.objective2k.com/85 Hisham El-Emam is one of the developers behind this.

Check out….

http://sliver.objective2k.com/85

]]> By: andr3 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-24128 andr3 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:59:26 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-24128 That's not what I meant, and I didn't want to make a case based on OpenLaszlo alone. I kind of tolerate OpenLaszlo because they attempt to conform with existing formats. They don't force or expect the browsers to support their own format, even being an open one. Oh, I love the metadata on mp3s.. are you comparing XUL to ID3 on mpeg-3? And why the anonymity? That’s not what I meant, and I didn’t want to make a case based on OpenLaszlo alone. I kind of tolerate OpenLaszlo because they attempt to conform with existing formats. They don’t force or expect the browsers to support their own format, even being an open one.

Oh, I love the metadata on mp3s.. are you comparing XUL to ID3 on mpeg-3?

And why the anonymity?

]]> By: BlogReader http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23907 BlogReader Fri, 31 Mar 2006 04:43:29 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23907 <b>andr3</b> <i>What if Laszlo started spitting their XML to the browsers?</i> I'm not sure what you're getting at. You don't like laszlo as it combines two formats together? I suppose you don't like metadata in your MP3s either. andr3 What if Laszlo started spitting their XML to the browsers?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. You don’t like laszlo as it combines two formats together? I suppose you don’t like metadata in your MP3s either.

]]> By: antigoog http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23886 antigoog Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:37:33 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23886 and maybe soon; AjaxAjaxWrite.. and maybe soon; AjaxAjaxWrite..

]]> By: Zoli's Blog http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23878 Zoli's Blog Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:15:05 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23878 <strong>ajaxWrite and ajaxSketch are Not True WebOffice Applications...</strong> I was one of the first bloggers to welcome  ajaxSketch, released only a week after ajaxWrite, as part of my growing collection of FireFox bookmarks in the WebOffice folder.  Well, I just deleted them.  What’s the point of using... ajaxWrite and ajaxSketch are Not True WebOffice Applications…

I was one of the first bloggers to welcome  ajaxSketch, released only a week after ajaxWrite, as part of my growing collection of FireFox bookmarks in the WebOffice folder.  Well, I just deleted them.  What’s the point of using…

]]> By: Shirish http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23874 Shirish Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:00:39 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23874 AJAX Bubble 2.0!! AJAX Bubble 2.0!!

]]> By: Blaze http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23859 Blaze Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:59:46 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23859 Yes, right, illustrator ;) Yes, right, illustrator ;)

]]> By: subscriber http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23852 subscriber Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:22:58 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23852 I want ajaxCAD now. I want ajaxCAD now.

]]> By: andr3 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23830 andr3 Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:34:53 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23830 Ok, I might have used the term without thinking.. it's hard translating to english my thoughts in portuguese. :P I should have said widely supported format, no? It's like OpenLaszlo. It's open, but it has to be converted to some other format (Flash or html+js) in order to achieve cross-browser compatibility. What if Laszlo started spitting their XML to the browsers? Do you see IE or Opera supporting Laszlo/XUL in the future? I don't. And I don't see the W3C getting behind each and every XML format for UI design out there... they already have XForms for that, don't they? Ok, I might have used the term without thinking.. it’s hard translating to english my thoughts in portuguese. :P

I should have said widely supported format, no? It’s like OpenLaszlo. It’s open, but it has to be converted to some other format (Flash or html+js) in order to achieve cross-browser compatibility. What if Laszlo started spitting their XML to the browsers? Do you see IE or Opera supporting Laszlo/XUL in the future? I don’t. And I don’t see the W3C getting behind each and every XML format for UI design out there… they already have XForms for that, don’t they?

]]> By: BlogReader http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23822 BlogReader Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:13:01 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23822 <b>andr3</b> <i>Unless people come up with a way to convert XUL to an open format,</i> You're saying "open format" but I don't think you know what it means. andr3 Unless people come up with a way to convert XUL to an open format,

You’re saying “open format” but I don’t think you know what it means.

]]> By: Marquee http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23812 Marquee Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:36:33 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23812 Hey kmx, it makes it all bright and sparkly :) Hey kmx, it makes it all bright and sparkly :)

]]> By: nox http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23803 nox Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:40:37 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23803 This is quite possibly the worst implementation of web 2.0 I have ever seen. Web 2.0 needs to be shot down-it's just like web 1.'s bubble, except this is supposedly 'prettier.' Yuck. This is quite possibly the worst implementation of web 2.0 I have ever seen. Web 2.0 needs to be shot down-it’s just like web 1.’s bubble, except this is supposedly ‘prettier.’ Yuck.

]]> By: tics » Blog Archive » ajaxSketch http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23795 tics » Blog Archive » ajaxSketch Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:52:35 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23795 [...] As promised ajaxSketch launched yesterday. Michael Arrington isn’t impressed (and neither are the commenters there; it would be fun to jump back in time for a day, have Michael writing an enthusiastic review and compare this second round of comments.) [...] [...] As promised ajaxSketch launched yesterday. Michael Arrington isn’t impressed (and neither are the commenters there; it would be fun to jump back in time for a day, have Michael writing an enthusiastic review and compare this second round of comments.) [...]

]]> By: andr3 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23784 andr3 Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:18:11 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23784 Using XUL for webapps goes against all the principles people like Zeldman and Molly have been fighting for. Unless people come up with a way to convert XUL to an open format, I'm going to see it like a language to develop stuff for the browser, not the web per se. Yes, I agree that the awful looking websites are a big turn off. First impressions count a lot, and the name didn't help as well. Not all webapps are good webapps. Using XUL for webapps goes against all the principles people like Zeldman and Molly have been fighting for.

Unless people come up with a way to convert XUL to an open format, I’m going to see it like a language to develop stuff for the browser, not the web per se.

Yes, I agree that the awful looking websites are a big turn off. First impressions count a lot, and the name didn’t help as well.

Not all webapps are good webapps.

]]> By: kmx http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23771 kmx Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:28:40 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23771 Saul, It all seems kinda bubble-1.0-esque, eh? Fancy logo, website, but no business plan. Saul,

It all seems kinda bubble-1.0-esque, eh? Fancy logo, website, but no business plan.

]]> By: Saul Weiner http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23768 Saul Weiner Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:17:35 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23768 I agree with the comments before. PR seems to trump a fully ready product these days. That's just bad news. I agree with the comments before. PR seems to trump a fully ready product these days. That’s just bad news.

]]> By: Carlos Garcia http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23756 Carlos Garcia Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:20:12 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23756 If you want to see a really impressive Rich Internet Application for publishing content from the Web to the Web, check out Scrapblog - http://www.scrapblog.com If you want to see a really impressive Rich Internet Application for publishing content from the Web to the Web, check out Scrapblog - http://www.scrapblog.com

]]> By: kmx http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23755 kmx Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:16:53 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23755 You know, I still don't understand how an all-purpose cleaning product can make my web experience that much better!? You know, I still don’t understand how an all-purpose cleaning product can make my web experience that much better!?

]]> By: Alastair James http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23731 Alastair James Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:51:05 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23731 "Assuming that in the next 2 years the majority will be using Gecko based browsers, making XUL backed web applications is really a good idea." Sadly, I dont think that will be the case :( I have been thinking of the sutibility of using XUL for web applications. Its so easy! But, of course only runs on Gecko browsers. I was recently thinking of the possibilty of creating a XUL -> HTML compatibilty that would convert XUL (or at least a rich subset) into XHTML / javascript. I dont think it would be that hard. After all, I have a selection of XHTML / javascript GUI components that do similar things to their XUL relations, but in a much harder to use way! XUL-lite anyone? “Assuming that in the next 2 years the majority will be using Gecko based browsers, making XUL backed web applications is really a good idea.”

Sadly, I dont think that will be the case :(

I have been thinking of the sutibility of using XUL for web applications. Its so easy! But, of course only runs on Gecko browsers.

I was recently thinking of the possibilty of creating a XUL -> HTML compatibilty that would convert XUL (or at least a rich subset) into XHTML / javascript. I dont think it would be that hard. After all, I have a selection of XHTML / javascript GUI components that do similar things to their XUL relations, but in a much harder to use way!

XUL-lite anyone?

]]> By: Alastair James http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23725 Alastair James Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:41:28 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23725 I think for an app to be a good candidate to be 'ajaxified' and put on the web, it needs to be reworked to suite the advantages of the medium. What are the advantages of web based software? Well its not speed or the UIs, because generally they suck. Rather, its the fact that anything on the web is instantly sharable! Whats the point in a Web application storing its files on your pc? None! All these web applications should allow multiple people to work on documents (with visioning / locking etc.). Thats the power of the web after all! I think for an app to be a good candidate to be ‘ajaxified’ and put on the web, it needs to be reworked to suite the advantages of the medium. What are the advantages of web based software? Well its not speed or the UIs, because generally they suck. Rather, its the fact that anything on the web is instantly sharable! Whats the point in a Web application storing its files on your pc? None! All these web applications should allow multiple people to work on documents (with visioning / locking etc.). Thats the power of the web after all!

]]> By: Rydal Williams http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23722 Rydal Williams Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:30:09 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23722 Simplicity is good, but can we really replace our desktop applications with web applications? I'm all for web applications but not every app can be used over the web, probably at the basic level. Simplicity is good, but can we really replace our desktop applications with web applications? I’m all for web applications but not every app can be used over the web, probably at the basic level.

]]> By: antigoog http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23719 antigoog Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:05:42 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23719 But as I said, the basis is very good; I fully agree with Alastair and Marc, the simplicity is good, and this is just the beginning. But as I said, the basis is very good; I fully agree with Alastair and Marc, the simplicity is good, and this is just the beginning.

]]> By: antigoog http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23716 antigoog Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:00:43 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23716 Assuming that in the next 2 years the majority will be using Gecko based browsers, making XUL backed web applications is really a good idea. But there are some things that Michael Robertson should take care of: 1) These are the ugliest web sites I've ever seen! You spend a lot efforts on engineering these applications, but can't you hire a good web designer to make your sites look a little bit professional. When visiting these sites, I ask myself "how come these sites can be featured on Techcrunch" 2) The name.. Ajax.. no this is not ajax! there's a mistake just at the beginning of all! Assuming that in the next 2 years the majority will be using Gecko based browsers, making XUL backed web applications is really a good idea.

But there are some things that Michael Robertson should take care of:

1) These are the ugliest web sites I’ve ever seen! You spend a lot efforts on engineering these applications, but can’t you hire a good web designer to make your sites look a little bit professional. When visiting these sites, I ask myself “how come these sites can be featured on Techcrunch”

2) The name.. Ajax.. no this is not ajax! there’s a mistake just at the beginning of all!

]]> By: John http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23714 John Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:54:37 +0000 http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/03/29/ajaxsketchzzzzzzzz/#comment-23714 These apps should be called XULWrite and XULSketch because ONLY FIREFOX can utilize them. Using the AJAX name is a huge disservice to a technology that is just starting out. It could be reasonably argued that the "IE only" or "best in IE" crowd is just ignorant. The AjaxWrite/Sketch guys should know better and they are asses for making something Firefox only and attaching the Ajax buzzword to it. These apps should be called XULWrite and XULSketch because ONLY FIREFOX can utilize them. Using the AJAX name is a huge disservice to a technology that is just starting out. It could be reasonably argued that the “IE only” or “best in IE” crowd is just ignorant. The AjaxWrite/Sketch guys should know better and they are asses for making something Firefox only and attaching the Ajax buzzword to it.

]]>