Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / nQuri - A better homepage?

Author
Message
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 24th May 2011 08:01 Edited at: 24th May 2011 12:20
Hey, guys. I've been using this site as my home page for over a year now (Yeah, it's been out that long) and it seems like no one's really heard about it yet.

Anyway, wanted to see what everyone else thought of it. I personally have troubles using the internet at all without it, it just makes getting around so easy!

The thing about this site is it's really freeform in how you set it up. It doesn't constrict you to placing stuff in certain areas like I've seen in so many other "homepages". It also has built-in searching, which makes it really easy to connect what you search with your home area.

To give an example of how it can be used, I have all of my favorite site links bundled up in the corner for easy access, all of my favorite music videos are organized into a collection so I can watch them whenever I want, and -- actually, it may just be easier to try it out for yourselves.

The url is http://www.nquri.com/

Post here with your thoughts on it! (Those of you that I've already spoken with about this site... keep it on the hush-hush, ok? )


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
Hodgey
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posted: 24th May 2011 08:10
It's a very neat idea and I can see how much people who love customizable homepages would love this but I prefer a simple homepage which consists of google search

A clever person solves a problem, a wise person avoids it - Albert Einstein
Uncle Sam
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2005
Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: 24th May 2011 08:17
It's a cool idea. I just wish the interface looked nicer.
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 24th May 2011 12:17 Edited at: 24th May 2011 12:17
@Uncle Sam:

What do you mean? The interface is very flexible. When you first start off, it uses a simple theme, but you can change that to make things look differently. Since I'm easily distracted by shiny objects I always opt for the shiny theme.


Here's a pic of what my webtop looks like right now (It's messy, I have shortcuts going everywhere, lol)


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.

Attachments

Login to view attachments
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 24th May 2011 20:43
I am fine with Chromes or Operas start page ^^

and for the record, I am a man.

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 24th May 2011 21:20
Hideously ugly and Flash to boot. I don't really understand the purpose of it either

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 25th May 2011 00:04
Yeah, it's not very appealing.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
The Next
Web Engineer
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 25th May 2011 00:22 Edited at: 25th May 2011 11:33
EDITED

Mystic Mod - Putting the fear back into sliced bread since 4th May 2010
Windows 7 Pro, AMD Phenom II X4 3.4Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4770 1GB, 2TB RAID-0 Hard disk
tha_rami
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 25th May 2011 01:46 Edited at: 25th May 2011 11:37
Dear The Next,

That IS constructive criticism.

P.S. assuming your product will 'grow on' your user is horrible design.

Business guy and developer at [url]www.vlambeer.com[/url] - bringing back arcade since 1956.
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 25th May 2011 02:21
@David R:

Quote: "and Flash to boot"


It's probably personal preference, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. What about Flash brings it down?


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 25th May 2011 05:45
Ok, as a web developer, here's why Flash is never acceptable by today's standards:

1. It's slow. Flash uses over 300mb of RAM to run high-end on most systems.

2. It's not supported on portable devices, and if it is, it's even slower and wastes resources.

3. It does nothing that can't be done with jQuery and PHP, which is supported by any browser (except for browsers with outdated JavaScript support).

Flash is ONLY acceptable in the event that there are no better alternatives, for example 3D graphics.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 25th May 2011 05:54
I'll put up with Flash for this pretty cool idea...perhaps you (The Next) could suggest that they use HTML5 to develop the site?

I'm definitely checking this out.

MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 25th May 2011 06:02
Quote: "(Those of you that I've already spoken with about this site... keep it on the hush-hush, ok? )"


After reading the extra from THE NEXT, this is in my opinion a very shady post and misleading, not to mention rather rude and a complete waste of personally speaking, my time as well as othere in my opinion.

If I were a mod I would have locked this post pretty soon. (For those who understand what I mean.. Hush...)

On constructive notes... I agree with my buddies the_rami and crispex, I also agree with Quik and David R...

And my own view is that this can easily be done in html with images and hot spots and compatible with pretty much any browser and device, and load a gabillion times faster and use zilion times less memory and resources... sorry but this feels like an under thought project. constructive advise would be, try and figure out why all browsers give html based links when you open new tabs in their browsers? and instead of coding like nuts in flash go for a more flexible html solution...

I dont just bite I feed haha

I just think you could have made this post more friendly than shady as it is in my view. hiding your true intention rather than just coming out right and asking us for our sincere opinion its very rather rude. others might have a slightly more open opinion, im just airing mine.

Goodd luck with it eitherway

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th May 2011 13:24
I like the concept. I think I can echo what people are saying about Flash, so I'll avoid repeating what they said.

I think my suggestion from there is probably something quite easy to change. Graphics. I don't want to insult your graphic design, but I think it'd be more attractive if somebody else were to do it and I'm sure it'd be easy to find someone on the forums who'd be willing to help in that respect.

I'll agree with Valentine that this probably wasn't the best way to market it to the forum, but I'll let you off.

Other than that you'll be happy to hear I've set it as my home page because I like it and although it's flash I have found it to be responsive. Good site, needs something better than Flash and needs a prettier face. All doable.

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 25th May 2011 17:24
Quote: "1. It's slow. Flash uses over 300mb of RAM to run high-end on most systems.

2. It's not supported on portable devices, and if it is, it's even slower and wastes resources.

3. It does nothing that can't be done with jQuery and PHP, which is supported by any browser (except for browsers with outdated JavaScript support)."


300MB? I don't know what system you have, but on all computers that I've tested this on, it has boot up with less than 100MB taken, and capped at no higher than 160MB (And that's with so much stuff being saved that I can't see the background anymore ). You have a point with portable devices, but we're not aiming to make this particular site accessible from a tiny screen, just doesn't work... need space and all that. A mobile version of the site would have to be made, regardless of what platform had been used. As for the site not doing anything that jQuery and PHP can't... what do you think nQuri does that these other languages can do better? This is what I'd really like to hear after your comments so far... what all are you basing your comments on?

HTML5 had a good chance of being used, but after actually using it, then using Flash... compare and contrast made me go with Flash.

That said, I hope I'm not sounding too defensive here or anything. I really appreciate the time you've taken to respond with your opinion. And that's what I made the thread for; to gather opinions.


@MrValentine:

Shady, perhaps... but it's been my experience that some members have a hard time sharing a completely unbiased opinion about a product if it's being developed by a community member. So, the aim here was to ask for opinions without saying "Look what I made!" and get an honest answer from people, to see what their reactions would be, what they tend to look at first, what they would comment on (if anything), and what they would criticise. Thankfully, the criticizing has been, more or less, constrained to the artistic style of the site and the platform we chose to use... and not toward any sort of underdevelopment.

So, the cat's out of the bag, I guess. Hope you can see my reason for being so shady about it.


@Seppuku:

Thanks for the feedback! Yes, our artist has been in training since... well, since we started (He didn't start as an artist, but he's getting there) lol. At least he's a good sport when it comes to critics and tries harder because of them

But, no, I didn't make the art on our site, my best friend did. I know he'd love to have someone take over for him, but honestly he's the only one who can do it now (Not without training someone for a week anyway). If you or anyone else would like to make your own theme (themes are what change the overall look of the site. Anything from buttons to media reels to the GUI), we'd love to see what you can do! Until our API is in place that would allow anyone to make their own theme, we have to resort to making our own, or finding someone who wants to take the time to make one the "hard way" right now (Hasn't happened yet, but we never know)

Hope you enjoy the site as your homepage, though! And thanks again for the input.


If anyone would like to share their opinion with me directly, or has suggestions for the site, I'm almost always available on Skype; username "Plystire"


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 25th May 2011 18:25 Edited at: 25th May 2011 18:27
im going to come clean, haha to be honest I was pulling your leg, i would too use this tactic, I got angry because you epic failed it... (good try though)

But yeah try to make it more... USER FRIENDLY and by that I mean aestetically lol

no harm done you saw through my lines by the sounds of it

EDIT

Adding to the above, I strongly always and always will support new ideas and projects, regardless of them being un grounded or floating on thin air, most of my own usually are, I just think the eperience gained through such ventures, far outweigh the bumps in the road, as round two will usually succeed if not round three is usually a sure fire winner if you follow me.

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 25th May 2011 19:10
I tried to keep someone from blowing my cover with the ending remark, but I guess you're right that I epic failed on that!

Quote: "But yeah try to make it more... USER FRIENDLY and by that I mean aestetically lol"


This is (and probably will be for quite some time) our biggest obstacle to overcome; making the interface as user-friendly and intuitive as possible without falling back on the old and outdated web-based document format. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by making it user friendly aesthetically, though, so if you can clarify a bit more on that it'd help out very much.


Thanks for your support


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
xplosys
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 25th May 2011 19:23
It's a good concept with a nice name!

OK then...

The page is bland and lacking any instructions, and the icons are unsophisticated. I'm looking at a white page with little 5 pictures on it. Is this a test? When I mouse over the cogs, it tells me that it is for options. Options for what?

Icons are nice on a desktop and it's cool that you can move them, but webpages use menus. That's what people expect just as much as they expect icons on the desktop.

Put some text on the page which explains what it is. Add some generic content that is visible by default and allow the user to change or remove it. This way, they have an idea of what it is and what is possible with just a glance. Some collapsing content areas would be nice.

I was clicking the icons a while before I figured out I had to double click them. Another desktop feature but neither web friendly or expected. I don't understand the trash can at all.

As already mentioned, the flash is slow to load and HTML will serve as well.

The more I think about it, the less I think I understand the concept. Is this supposed to be like a portal (AOL, YAHOO, MSN) or just a limited desktop in a browser?

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 25th May 2011 19:28 Edited at: 25th May 2011 19:32
My apologies for the double-post, but my artist feels that I have to defend our decision to use Flash... not entirely sure why, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory.

If you don't care to read my defense of Flash, skip this post entirely.

To start off with, our aim with nQuri was to make a completely dynamic interface that can be used and abused without the need to wait for load-times. This, in essence, means the page must be able to react to any request by the user during runtime. No other platform, aside from Silverlight and Flash (perhaps a few others, but those are the two main ones, and Silverlight hasn't seen the same support that Flash has, being newer and all) can offer this. HTML5 cannot "inject" new code during runtime and would require a complete refresh of the site to laod new content. This not only leads to additional code, but also additional (and unnecessary) loadtime for our users.

To give you something to try out. Allow nQuri to load up. Depending on your system specs, this may or may not take a bit of time. However, once the site is loaded, it does not need to load again in order to continue using it. This includes searching. Running a search does NOT require a complete reload, in fact, the search is done on the fly and results are ready far faster than our server would be able to provide under "normal" circumstances. This applies to images and video search results as well, which is why we're capable of providing ALL searches on the same screen, with little to no waiting time, without a large server farm to back it up. We actually DO have quite a bit of traffic going through our server.... our ONLY server -- yet, it can hold up very well because there aren't constant requests to load media, HTML, etc. whenevr an action on the site is taken. Most of the user-made requests can be handled by Flash directly, which is client-side and dependant upon the user's system specs (more often than not, far faster than making a server request).


That being said, I am aware of Flash's drawbacks as far as memory consumption is concerned, and over the past year, I have developed a system to take all measures possible to reduce the memory footprint of running the site (Originally half a Gig, now less than 100MB on load) as well as reducing loadtime (originally 10-20 seconds, now consistently less than 5 on low-mid range machines), all while providing an increasingly powerful framework to build from.

If you have further crits (not going to say "complaints" because I'm well aware that this is a legit area of concern) about the usage of Flash, please don't hold back, let me hear your thoughts!


[EDIT]

Oh, and to defend my artist:
The default theme (known as the "SIMPLE" theme, for obvious reasons) was designed to cater to two aspects. It needed to be "light" for fast loading times, as well as appealing to a general audience. This is why the original look of the site is quite "plain" and, possibly to some of you, unattractive.

However, the theme can be changed in the options. Double click the gears icon, navigate to the "Theme" tab, pick a theme from the drop-down menu (It even has a preview for you!), and click Okay to confirm it. We're always working on new themes, and if you have a suggested theme, we'll look into making it happen!


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 25th May 2011 19:45 Edited at: 25th May 2011 19:48
To clarify, aestetic friendliness,

I am a visually fked user, so those tiny little app icons... dont do me much good, making me peer into a dozen LED's (depending on your screen) is eye straining, hence the word aestetics, you can use this to your advantage, where your functionism lacks you can fill this void with a much more functional visual appeal... consider this.... take a look at a graphics card company for example, or perhaps take a look at what twitter is doing recently, they didnt change much apart from remove RSS feeds to an extent, but they basically redesigned the aestetics of the site, making it in some way more user friendly whereas the older site was way tooo clouded lol its more stream line now and a bit more professional... so perhaps find a colour scheme to follow more openly, and perhaps take this idea from one of my similar upcoming apps, (see my banner for a clue ^^) why dont you make it that the user can not change the background, as they may insert a hugh sized resolution image and kill your .. sorry "break" your application... why dont you do the google o rama thing and change it on a daily basis, since its online based I am sure that wouldnt be a problem for you, If I can add more to this I would love to support you (obviously ignore my first post lol) and i believe we may be able to work on something in future, as i lack in web programming, although I do well in Design areas.

I am currently incorporating a new company which will also front my software keep peeled at my Banner!!!

EDIT

Hope the above helped somewhat

an extra bit to add,

Have you considered using Silverlight if your just targetting desktop environment, I think its much better than Flash and MUCH more stable

tha_rami
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 25th May 2011 19:59
Quote: "Oh, and to defend my artist:"

Don't. You've got a 100% negative feedback on the aesthetics. Either you screwed up with regards to what you told him to make, or the artist screwed up with creating what you asked - or you both failed.

Okay, I'm going to be me and offer the most honest and harshest critisism I can give with what I know. If you feel like you can handle that, read on. Otherwise, please ignore the following and continue at the last paragraph.

Quote: "The default theme (known as the "SIMPLE" theme, for obvious reasons) was designed to cater to two aspects. It needed to be "light" for fast loading times, as well as appealing to a general audience. This is why the original look of the site is quite "plain" and, possibly to some of you, unattractive. "

If you're talking about plain, you're talking about something that doesn't leave an impression. This look isn't plain - it's bad.

These tints of blue & green don't work together in large elements. There are huge discrepancies in level of detail - the icons are simplistic and abstract & the safe has high levels of detail. All the gradients are way too prominent and should be subtle touches. The mixture of square, circle and misc. shapes leaves little sense of consistency.

The white background works but leaves a plain first impression & the extreme contrast with the interactive elements might be a bit overkill. A simple tiled image or a soft background color that is not absolute white would make it more interesting to look at. The font is plain & where its not (ie the images widget) it is overdone.

The links at the bottom are not the default link blue yet blue and underscored.

Design-wise, there is no way to get back to the tutorial. Double clicking makes no sense in a browser. There is no or no conceivable flow in the design and for me, it appears the option menu is cluttered together way too much.

There is little feedback to my actions (a typing cursor appears when I click empty space, but what if I miss that or don't understand what to do?). This holds true for basically anything on the website.

There should be a way to quickly and conveniently get help at any time, though I like the way you introduce new stuff through tutorials only when you first reach them.

Business guy and developer at [url]www.vlambeer.com[/url] - bringing back arcade since 1956.
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 25th May 2011 20:44 Edited at: 25th May 2011 20:45
Thanks again for the feedback you two. Very detailed this time giving us something to work with

I'm going to try and take this a bit at a time, so this might end up being a huge post.

@MrValentine:

What resolution is your screen? On any resolution that I've tested with, the icons have all been reasonably sized (sometimes a little on the large size, even), so I'm curious to know at what res you're running the site, since tiny icons are definitely not useful, unless opted for by the user.

I'm taking from your post that you're thinking our site should be more visually enthralling when the user first visits. Though, this may or may not be possible to incorporate into what we have thus far and what we're aiming for in the long-run.

Our color scheme is (and for the most part will always be) the green-blue combo, seen in our logo. This color scheme also makes its way into other aspects of the site, from border colors to sidebar colors (seen on image and video reels, being green and blue respectively, by default). We have also tried incorporating the color scheme into further parts of the site, but at a point, it became overwhelming and needed to cut back. This where we brought in grey where color isn't necessary, but is enhanced when interacted with by the user (hovering over a hotlink will light it up, for example). I am always open to suggestions in this department, though, as artistic design can almost always use improving.

Quote: "why dont you make it that the user can not change the background, as they may insert a hugh sized resolution image and kill your .. sorry "break" your application... why dont you do the google o rama thing and change it on a daily basis"


Changing the background is done by the user, and at the user's own discretion. We can default to a certain background (which I've thought about doing), but if the user wants to change it, I won't stop them. That's what it means to allow personalization. I don't know what you mean about breaking the application, though. I've loaded images many times larger than my screen resolution without fail. Have large images in the background caused a problem for you?

If you have Skype, I'd like to talk more with you about this (And possibly avoid future ginormous posts, lol)


@tha_rami:

Harsh, but still a very constructive post that I appreciate.

Quote: "Don't. You've got a 100% negative feedback on the aesthetics. Either you screwed up with regards to what you told him to make, or the artist screwed up with creating what you asked - or you both failed."


Then we both failed, as we're both currently satisfied with the art-style. Regardless, we continue to improve upon it. But it couldn't be helped. With our budget, we did our best with what we had at our disposal. Thus far, you're right we DO have 100% negative feedback here and we will take it into account in the future, but we haven't had 100% negative feedback outside of the forum.

Regarding your thorough analysis of our design, may I request suggestions for ways we can improve consistency? Namely artisically, but would also appreciate any thoughts on functionality suggestions as well.

About the tutorial. It is actually the most recent addition and will most definitely change in the near future. My current thoughts on improving it functionally (this incorporates a future control that is nearing completion) are to do away with the "tour" and instead provide a concise list of viewable tutorials in order of recommendation that the user can activate at any time and go back to at any time. This list can be brought up/thrown away at any time as well, so it'll never be permanently lost. What are your thoughts on this?

I'd like to talk with you more about this, as well, knowing you have a knack for giving a complete and honest opinion, so if you have Skype, maybe we can continue this discussion?


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
The Next
Web Engineer
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 25th May 2011 20:53
Thank you for the feedback it has been helpful. Firstly I need to clear up that I am working with Plystire and the artist on nQuri. I do the back end development on the site such as the search results, I have however had input on how the site is written and what it is written in on the front end.

This site was started over a year ago and at that time, as it is now, Flash was the best choice for the front end. Flash is not as bad as half of you are making it out to be... sure Flash has got a bad reputation for being slow to load among other things. However it is very powerful and the fact is that HTML5 and jQuery as fantastic as they are would not match up to it. HTML5 and jQuery may be able to do things like draggable elements, fancy effects and so on but the fact is they are not as good as those provided by Flash. Until jQuery can do everything Flash can to the same quality it will not be a viable alternative.

As for our choice to not use SilverLight at the time development started Silverlight was very new and unsupported in many browsers, it was and still is just as slow as Flash.

Now onto the design you have already heard that the site is new and it is being worked on as a concept. A "concept" it is, the site design may need improvement to address all the issues raised here. The idea behind nQuri is to not be like other sites, it's a new idea, playing with what works and what doesn't is part of it. If people think it is too like a desktop and think buttons should be one click instead of two, this will be talked about and addressed. But knocking nQuri before it has a chance to grow into anything would be a mistake.

Please keep the comments coming we are happy to hear them all.

Mystic Mod - Putting the fear back into sliced bread since 4th May 2010
Windows 7 Pro, AMD Phenom II X4 3.4Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4770 1GB, 2TB RAID-0 Hard disk
tha_rami
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Mar 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 25th May 2011 21:07 Edited at: 25th May 2011 21:11
Quote: "Then we both failed, as we're both currently satisfied with the art-style. Regardless, we continue to improve upon it."


Quote: "Thus far, you're right we DO have 100% negative feedback here and we will take it into account in the future, but we haven't had 100% negative feedback outside of the forum. "

Okay, then please do the following: Google 'color theory' & let your artist do the same. Google 'composition' as well, never hurts either.

Quote: "Regarding your thorough analysis of our design, may I request suggestions for ways we can improve consistency? Namely artisically, but would also appreciate any thoughts on functionality suggestions as well."

The main thing that it's overwhelming. There's absolute freedom and the only thing that's going to guide people through are a clear, consistent and conformistic interface. Use common elements and use consistent shapes & placement.

Remember that the first impression is vital. Most of your feedback probably clicked away within the first 30 seconds because of the site looking 'bad' and the points I addressed in my previous post. After toying with it, I have nothing against the functionality, but I definitely dislike the way it is presented to me.

Make it possible to record how long someone is on the site and/or implement heatmaps for clicks. This should give a nice indication of whether people give the site a shot and how they use it.

While on the topic of recommended reads, Google for 'Usability' & 'User Experience Design' (UXD). I can highly recommend Dan Saffers' 'Designing for interaction' and Bill Buxtons' 'Sketching User Experiences' as literature if you're interested in these fields.

Quote: "Now onto the design you have already heard that the site is new and it is being worked on as a concept. A "concept" it is, the site design may need improvement to address all the issues raised here. The idea behind nQuri is to not be like other sites, it's a new idea, playing with what works and what doesn't is part of it. If people think it is too like a desktop and think buttons should be one click instead of two, this will be talked about and addressed. But knocking nQuri before it has a chance to grow into anything would be a mistake. "

Stop doing that. You're defending something you asked for feedback on. If you don't want negative feedback, stop asking for feedback. If we say 'this might be better this & this way' that might be wrong, but if we say 'we don't like this' that's never wrong.

Plystire, I'd love to talk on Skype but at this moment, I'm really short on time due to my work at Vlambeer. Maybe sometime after Serious Sam: The Random Encounter is done, okay?

Business guy and developer at [url]www.vlambeer.com[/url] - bringing back arcade since 1956.
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 25th May 2011 21:18 Edited at: 25th May 2011 21:26
@xplosys:

I completely missed your post, and thought I was even double-posting on the next one! Sorry 'bout that.


I take it from your response that you didn't see a tutorial of any kind appear for you. I know very well from watching people use the site without a tutorial how confusing and easily disgruntling it can be to look at and play with. I've only encountered one time where the tutorial didn't show up, shrugged it off as an anomaly, but now I s'pose I'll have to file it under the bug reports and take a deeper look.


To explain; yes, it has a lot of desktop-like functionality (the main interface is even called a "WebTop" to try and tip off our users about that, but without the tutorial I don't suspect you saw that) which is what we were aiming for. The site as a whole is not following "Internet standards", except for the almost properly formatted search results and bottom links (Will have to make sure links are colored properly sometime soon).

The desktop-like functionality doesn't stop with having to double-click sometimes, you can even create Collections (desktop equivalent would be subdirectories), save images and videos on the webtop as icons (This is where the trashcan comes into play, to get rid of things you don't want anymore), and later on down the line you'll be able to load user-made content (like Apps, I suppose).
Given all of this, I will have to disagree, HTML would not have been sufficient to pull off what we were aiming for here. It may have been able to make something similar, but from my experiments with HTML5, it would not have been as fluid or as responsive.

If you care to give it another try, you can reset your nQuri cookie by opening the Options (double-click) and click on the Reset WebTop button near the button, confirm the choice in the popup, and nQuri will reload, hopefully showing you the tutorial this time. Thanks again for the bug report!


[EDIT]

I need to stop taking so much time to write responses, there always seems to be one that I miss while I'm typing.

@tha_rami:

It's okay, I understand time constraints. I look forward to talking with you in the future. I'll give your feedback much consideration.


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 25th May 2011 21:20
in regards to the resolution... I am giving my feedback on your IMAGE attached earlier... and regarding this...

Quote: "I've loaded images many times larger than my screen resolution without fail. Have large images in the background caused a problem for you? "


Try not to offent someone trying to help..

but to answer this point... I have worked with images exceeding 2TB in size, yes thats TB not MB or GB, so your answer is, No never had an issue, just stating a fact that some applications can not handle images of various formats or sizes unless you program it in, and if you have not set these limits, that tells me your not covering your memory leaks... aka, bad code

and to answer another mention... Silverlight is far better than flash, in both performance, and stability... try looking into it before making a half cocked remark...

my two cents

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 25th May 2011 21:37
Sorry, MrValentine, wasn't intending to offend, just trying to get a better understanding of what you meant. Thank you for clarifying.

I'll try to grab an unusually large image like you've mentioned and ensure that the application can hold up with it and avoid memory leaks.


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
The Next
Web Engineer
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 25th May 2011 21:41 Edited at: 25th May 2011 21:44
Quote: "and to answer another mention... Silverlight is far better than flash, in both performance, and stability... try looking into it before making a half cocked remark..."


Obviously this is subjective your better may not be the same as other peoples better. For sure silverlight is not my idea of better it is slow and even to load the simplest of silverlight projects you find your self waiting for a silverlight loading animation to end.

Unless you have actually developed with silverlight go read up some more, your find that flash and silverlight loading isn't much different. As for the performance once you are loaded nQuri is very fast indeed and won't eat up many resources at all.

Mystic Mod - Putting the fear back into sliced bread since 4th May 2010
Windows 7 Pro, AMD Phenom II X4 3.4Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon HD 4770 1GB, 2TB RAID-0 Hard disk
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 25th May 2011 21:51
haha, thanks The Next, was expecting that... anyway, each Platform to its pros and cons, was wondering if you would say this, but I guess now... A good developer wont always stand by their chosen medium...

and Plystire, the headroom of the image size, is irrelavent, you need to set in place a cap and collect that thing forgot what its called something like, junk oh garbage collecting, thats the one

xplosys
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 25th May 2011 22:53
After clearing the cookie, I was presented with an opportunity to see the tut. There is a lot more to the site than I first thought. Still, it's not anything I would be interested in. I guess I like to keep my desktop and my browser separate. Why? Because I wasn't sold on the idea. When your page appeared, it was bland and boring, enough so that I wouldn't have bothered to look at the tut if you hadn't asked. The tut was bland and boring as well.

I'm told I'm more of a web designer than a web developer and I agree, so I won't argue the FLASH issue with you.

I'm currently working on a site for an online-digital printing company and having a hell of a time with the design. The owner is an old-school printer and all his ideas look like a flyer or brochure with double spaced, centered type and those low res metafile images from a 20 year old CD. Yours is not as bad, but still not weblike, which is where I have the problem. It's one of those sites I would just click by.

My thought is that if you want to sell the functionality, you'll need to put it in a pretty box.

Brian.

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 25th May 2011 22:55 Edited at: 25th May 2011 23:01
@MrValentine:

Garbage collecting is more or less handled by Flash, and from all of my extensive testing, it has been doing a wonderful job of keeping up. However, if someone tips me off that there is a problem with the garbage collection as it is right now, I will indeed take a deeper look into how I can make it better on our end.

As for an image cap, I think we will continue leaving that up to the user's discretion. I would hate to censor any content simply because the image is considered too large in our opinion. We will, however, continue to implement as many fail-safes as we can to avoid crashes and inform the user if anything happens out of the ordinary (such as an image failing to load because it was too large to handle )

[EDIT]

@xplosys:

Almost missed your post again, typing a post when you posted.

I'm all ears for suggestions to make the initial impact more meaningful and captivating to new users. I'm no web designer myself, I'm all dev (my friend tells me all the time that it seems like I'm more comfortable with something that just works over something that looks pretty ), so I'm always open for design suggestions that'll increase the amount of users that stay to give the site a good try before making a final decision.


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th May 2011 00:17
Quote: "To start off with, our aim with nQuri was to make a completely dynamic interface that can be used and abused without the need to wait for load-times. This, in essence, means the page must be able to react to any request by the user during runtime. No other platform, aside from Silverlight and Flash (perhaps a few others, but those are the two main ones, and Silverlight hasn't seen the same support that Flash has, being newer and all) can offer this. HTML5 cannot "inject" new code during runtime and would require a complete refresh of the site to laod new content. This not only leads to additional code, but also additional (and unnecessary) loadtime for our users."


Obviously you haven't spent much time in web development. AJAX and jQuery are the exact reason to NOT use flash. AJAX allows for active changing of code without the need to refresh. It loads one applet, like Flash, and can load additional content as it's added or changed.

I'd honestly say that the ultimate worst thing you could use is Flash. Flash bogs down the browser, and takes time to load. You're not appealing to a wide audience, you're appealing to only desktop audiences. Mobility is the future. You're not developing for the future, you're developing on a system that has already been developed many times for. I myself don't see anything different from your site than I can't already use with iGoogle. The idea of a site is to take something that exists, find a common problem, and make it better. There is no getting better when you're still stuck developing for desktops. I personally know that my phone does not do a good job with iGoogle, and I would be more than happy to use a site that actually works decent on mobile platforms.

You can honestly try to justify Flash until you're blue in the face, but Flash in itself is a technology that is still very limited. JavaScript and PHP have reached FAR beyond, and HTML5 is still growing in popularity, meaning there is LOADS of experimenting to be done.

Even then, 100mb is far too much RAM to be dedicating to a web application. Even Facebook uses less. I know you said "less than", but even comparing it to 100mb is a bit much.

If you're settling to make something that is only aimed toward desktop users, good luck. It's all about portability and speed. Your site took 15 seconds for me to load on a 25mbps connection, and a 3.2GHz Dual Core PC with 4gb DDR3 RAM. Facebook takes me 4 seconds to load, and YouTube takes 6. 15 seconds is more time than most are willing to dedicate to a home page, something that is supposed to be quick and easy.

I'm not trying to sound rude or arrogant, and if I am I apologize, I just don't see how this is going to be successful if you're going to use Flash or Silverlight. I've got an iPad that I use, and even then why would I want to browse a site that uses a technology that is not able to be used?

As you can tell, developers are starting to use the various elements of JavaScript and HTML, that way they can stay clear of Flash and other web frameworks.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 26th May 2011 01:41 Edited at: 26th May 2011 02:19
@crispex:

15 seconds? I don't know what else you're pushing in the background to have your browser run so slow, but my mid-range laptop loads nQuri in under 4 seconds (And, no, I have my browser set up not to store any sites in cache, because when I do updates, I need it to be updated right away), YouTube in roughly 3 seconds, and Facebook in about 6 seconds (my profile, not the default page when you're not signed in). Considering Facebook takes more time to load than a Flash site, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the load time isn't as bad as you're making it out to be. I just now tested that, and have run the same test too many times to count in the past. So please don't think that load time is not one of my concerns. To add to this, I will repeat what I mentioned earlier. nQuri is best used if you don't close it. Leaving it open prevents any MORE load time from the site. I don't know if this is just me (It might be), but I'd rather extend my initial load time by a few seconds and bypass any more page loads, than have to reload the page for every search or action that I perform. Now, I can't honestly say that you're WRONG about your load times, because I really don't know and I'll have to take your word for it. And since I haven't seen load times of that magnitude from nQuri in such a long time, I will be going back to optimize things further where I can find ways to optimize it, so thank you for the report.

[EDIT]
Missed your mention of Facebook using less than 100MB. You're right! It uses ~83MB of RAM on load for me, which if I wasn't bragging about it, I would probably say that as "less than 100MB".
[/EDIT]

I was hoping to avoid a Flash vs. Whatever debate, so I'll be short about this.

You obviously have a very bleak outlook on Flash, and that's not something I intend to change or try to convince you otherwise on. Here's a very brief rundown on why I chose Flash over AJAX/JavaScript/HTML4.0/HTML5.0.

It's already widely known amongst developers that JavaScript (even flat out HTML) is treated differently between different browsers (I have very recent personal experience to support this during development, so I don't need a debate about this as well). Flash, as far as I have seen over the past YEAR, is not. So, here, a concern is consistency between browsers. Other concerns I had (during the experimentation phase, where I actually USED different languages) were responsiveness and dynamicy during runtime.

Contrary to what you may think, I am not trying to convince you about Flash's usefulness, as I don't need to. I am only telling you that I convinced myself of Flash's usefulness a long time ago. Unless you can provide me with some solid proof that my decision was incorrect (Do not post such proof here, contact me either by email or Skype, this thread is intended for comments or critiques about what the site provides, not about what it was developed in) I see no reason to take these claims to heart when I have already debunked more than half of your claims time and time again in my own personal testing. Flash may be limited, but so is every language in one form or another, so that point is dismissed. I did indeed ask why Flash brought the site down and I've heard the response.

Thank you for your comments and concerns, but the Flash debate doesn't need to be pressed any further. If you wish to continue the debate, I ask that you email me instead of carrying it further here.

Now, portability being the future, I can agree with, but what you cannot dispute is that every site (mobile or not) requires a foundation to be built on. Our foundation is still being built, and we're not yet AT the stage to move into the mobile market. You must have assumed from my prior statement that we have no intention of providing for mobile devices, but we do indeed have plans for that and we will cross that bridge when we come to it.


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th May 2011 04:36
You need to think of the mobile market now before you start adding additional features. In return to your comments on Flash, you're right. It's used the same on every browser. HOWEVER, you have a common issue. Flash is powered by your hardware. Pretty much every browser that is fairly modern including mobile browsers support advanced JavaScript scripting. While Flash is the same on all browsers, it's easier to install a new browser than it is to upgrade your computer hardware.

I understand your...deep affection for using Flash, but you don't seem to be understanding that your project won't go far with it. YouTube and sites that use Flash like Flash game sites are popular because it's really the only developed platform you can use for playing videos and developing games. I won't debate how easy it is to use and customize, however you're not thinking on the scale of a developer. Why do you think most professional sites stick away from Flash? It's not because it's annoying, it's because it's too hardware dependent.

You're asking for comments and concerns, and to be honest Flash is a legitimate concern. It's not about which is better, it's about which will allow your site to expand and grow. I like seeing people around here take more interest in web development, but I dislike the routes people often take. I'd like to see your site grow and expand, but if you use Flash, your killing off a great market.

The biggest problem with Flash is indeed the hardware. While your mid-range laptop may run it fine, my higher-end desktop has issues running it, and not because I'm running other things. You can take two laptops of the same make and model and have it turn out entirely different results. You've got to think of connection (Flash "buffers" meaning parts of it are only loaded if needed it doesn't truly load it as a whole), and you've got to think about terms of bloat. Flash is VERY bloated, as it has to initialize all of its modules, instead of things like JavaScript which only load the parts you tell it to. Flash is a framework, and as we all know from experience with .NET Framework, frameworks are bad.

That's the final thing I'm going to go on about Flash, and I'll leave the topic go where it may.

Just take note that while easier, Flash is not the best route to take, and this is coming from someone who has been working with websites and multimedia since he was 10 (not to be arrogant).

As for your site, it's a good idea...in theory. It has to load faster, and you have to kick Flash. If not, then there is nothing more I can really say other than it needs some graphical work.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
xplosys
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 26th May 2011 05:16 Edited at: 26th May 2011 05:18
Removed.

Destrugter 1
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 26th May 2011 06:47 Edited at: 26th May 2011 06:54
The website loaded instantly for me. I'm running Opera 11.11 on a laptop with a 2.3GHz Dual Core Processor and 4GB of DDR3 RAM. My internet connection is 1.5 megabits per second. Idk what Crispex is smoking, because I've also got RuneScape (the external client...and it uses a lot of RAM itself since you don't need Java...it somehow emulates it), 30 tabs open in Opera, watching a HD movie on a virtual drive, with steam on, outlook on a 5 minute refresh, steam, chatting with friends, downloading updates on steam.

EDIT

Not instantly...but I didn't have time to reply to an email when it finished loading.

EDIT 2
Plystire, I think it's neat...but I really have no use for it =P

My name is Brian.
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 26th May 2011 07:50
@crispex:

One comment to make here as I'm allowing the Flash discussion to cease:
Quote: "You can take two laptops of the same make and model and have it turn out entirely different results."

The site has been tested on many different PCs, laptops, and netbooks, across multiple OS's and with every browser on every OS. Either your PC is very very unique, or I just wasn't thorough enough. I will not state that I did thorough testing unless I had actually done thorough testing. I did thorough testing.


@Destrugter:

Thank you for giving it a go anyway.


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 26th May 2011 11:33
I actually have an interesting question...

but first @Destrugter, did you try clearing your cache? you seem to have missed the point.

Ok I agree lets dim down the flash debate, as that will never get anywhere, but I want to add I am sure Silverlight is on Ipad, but who on earth uses a complete waste of money like that?

Moving onto my question, Where is the app situated? on a server at your home location? on the web? is the database if any situated at your home ot same server as the applet?

if its a web hosting server, what spec is it at? it might be that its the hosting provider causing the loading issues, my server host is using 50,000 MBIT true UK server hosting... so... consider your hosting platform... btw what database system are you using, im ignoring anything said earlier as theres a load of database systems mentioned above, if your using SQL I have a spare 150MB database available, although next week I will have 500MB databases available, I dont mind supporting your site if you need any help in hosting services, however I am a .NET dev supporter so, depends on your development environment.

arhg too much to say here, just add me on skype message me on pm here in my profile, Cheers

Destrugter 1
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 26th May 2011 11:43
If I cleared my cache, it wouldn't have made any difference at all because I had never been to the site until today.

My name is Brian.
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 26th May 2011 11:48
lol I put a smiley and it told me to turn my caps off lol

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 26th May 2011 12:23 Edited at: 26th May 2011 12:26
One main reason to not use Flash: It immediately looks amateur.

Flash that is used well (intros, videos, various other things not possible in basic HTML) looks professional. But as soon as you come across an entire site built in Flash, you immediately think "amateur" (or at least I do)

Use the right tool for the job. Flash is not it (especially since all of what you have made could be made in HTML5 and be portable across platforms with no plugins. Flash is also illogical since it sucks at integrating with native controls, shortcuts special options etc. Since your site is trying to emulate a 'page within a page' ditching the convenience of properly native controls - which you could get via HTML - seems really backward)

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 26th May 2011 13:43
Quote: "One main reason to not use Flash: It immediately looks amateur.
"


Well, I didn't want to say it, but this. I'm usually a believer in "whatever gets the job done", but when it comes to web development your can't really muck around.

The site loads quick on my laptop, I DID have a few background tasks that were rather...taxing which I forgot to mention, for that I apologize.

Regardless, it still loads longer than Facebook and YouTube, which is rather bad because Facebook and YouTube are some of them more slower sites due to their bloat.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 26th May 2011 15:39
Ignore the flash comments. Real users don't care. They care about functionality.

The problem with this software is the UI. You need to hire or otherwise get someone to redesign your UI.

[center]Official TGC President elect.
Pwning newbs since 2002.
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 26th May 2011 16:03
Quote: "Real users don't care. They care about functionality.
"


Part of my point was that Flash impairs functionality. I can't right click on a Flash text box like a normal one and use Services or 'lookup in dictionary' in OSX, because the flash UI controls are very poor impostors. There are also a whole bunch of shortcuts that don't work using their controls. That to me is a big negative, especially for anyone not on Windows (presumably as you move away from Win. the UI integration per-platform gets worse and worse)

09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 26th May 2011 20:18 Edited at: 26th May 2011 21:01
@MrValentine:

We're currently renting a server from a farm (which is no where near my house), so it's highly unlikely that the server's location is responsible for the site loading faster for me than for anyone else.

Since you asked, here are the server's specs (it is a dedicated server, so we're the only ones on it):
2 x Quad Core Intel Nehalam Xeon
16GB DDR3 RAM
2 x 1TB HDD (RAID1)
On a dedicated 1GigE port
1000MBit


I'd add you on skype, but neither your email nor your username return any results. Add me (Plystire) if you'd like.


@Everyone:

Thanks for the comments so far, I think we have an idea of where to go from here. The main points here have been with the artwork and the UI, so we'll be focusing more on improving those in the near future.


~Plystire

Only those who sow the seeds of their desires will reap their benefits later.
However, I have seeds of my own to tend to. I don't have time to be someone else's watering can.
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 27th May 2011 00:47
Sweet good to see those specs are on somewhat a world class platform, and glad to see you are taking every step as seriously as possible and you fully understand the depth of what you are attempting and addressing those concerns

good job boys keep it up!!!

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 29th May 2011 10:21 Edited at: 29th May 2011 10:23
I hope you don't mind having me step in with an opinion on Flash vs. jQuery.

Quote: "Obviously you haven't spent much time in web development."


What a ridiculous thing to say. You think that your opinion is so great that if anyone disagrees with you it means they haven't spent much time doing it? So ignorant.

Quote: "Flash bogs down the browser, and takes time to load."


Welcome to 2003. Flash will only slow down a browser if the ActionScript developer doesn't know what he's doing (i.e. creating thousands of object instances every frame). Nowadays people don't have to worry about their site taking up more than 100MB of RAM, because most computers have several GBs to spare. We're not living in a world where RAM is scarce, as it once was.

I was a senior web developer for many years, and I've used PHP and jQuery extensively. I have seen improper use of jQuery balloon a website's footprint and slow down the browser. In fact, I've had jQuery CRASH my browser several times. It's more about the programmer as opposed to the tool.

Quote: "JavaScript and PHP have reached FAR beyond"


You keep referring to PHP, but that has nothing to do with the issue, because you can use PHP with Flash or with jQuery. When you keep throwing PHP into the topic it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

On a side note, Flash using Molehill is capable of rendering 3D using the GPU, so it's definitely going to be a contender in the 3D space very soon.


Software Engineer - Metamoki
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 29th May 2011 18:21 Edited at: 29th May 2011 18:23
Quote: "What a ridiculous thing to say. You think that your opinion is so great that if anyone disagrees with you it means they haven't spent much time doing it? So ignorant."


No, it's just a well known fact that any web developer who has been in the business and knows their way around things will NEVER use Flash. It's one of the golden rules of web development, don't use Flash to base your site around. Like I said, it's only widely accepted for Flash games or streaming video. How am I ignorant for knowing what and what not to do? I didn't invent the rules. I used to design and produce sites in Flash, then I realized that the pros were right, and that it's unprofessional to design Flash-based sites. If you want to limit your options and do it for a hobby, that's fine, but if you do it for mainstream sites that you hope to try to make popular, good luck.

Quote: "Welcome to 2003. Flash will only slow down a browser if the ActionScript developer doesn't know what he's doing (i.e. creating thousands of object instances every frame). Nowadays people don't have to worry about their site taking up more than 100MB of RAM, because most computers have several GBs to spare. We're not living in a world where RAM is scarce, as it once was.

I was a senior web developer for many years, and I've used PHP and jQuery extensively. I have seen improper use of jQuery balloon a website's footprint and slow down the browser. In fact, I've had jQuery CRASH my browser several times. It's more about the programmer as opposed to the tool."


Flash itself doesn't encourage proper coding standards, as it doesn't enforce very much. Yes, jQuery, AJAX, etc. can crash, but I've yet to experience any crashes, though I don't doubt they exist. As for RAM, again, I think like any decent web developer should, for mobile platforms. If you want to get ahead and develop a great site, you NEED to think about the mobile market. People are increasingly using their phones and tablets, and unfortunately they suffer because of developers who think, "Oh I'll do it later."

Quote: "You keep referring to PHP, but that has nothing to do with the issue, because you can use PHP with Flash or with jQuery. When you keep throwing PHP into the topic it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about."


Obviously it does have to do with the issue. PHP and AJAX / jQuery can do just enough, if not more than Flash. Flash is a suite, it has everything you seemingly need to make great interactive sites. I won't strip its credit, as it does have a broad spectrum of tools, however it still is geared more toward visual people, and web developers in general hate WYSIWYG editors, simply because they don't teach good coding standard, not to mention they put out sloppy code. ActionScript cannot really be considered by any means "difficult", though it can be annoying.

I used to make Flash games and applications. I hate how people assume that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I've done a lot. Though I don't know everything, and I still have much to learn and put into practice, I don't appreciate people calling me ignorant for not supporting people developing in Flash. As a child, when you're doing something wrong, what do your parents do? Correct you. In another sense, when you see someone doing things the difficult way, you generally advise them and keep reinforcing that they're taking the difficult way.

You've given me no real reason why my opinions (more like facts) are wrong. It seems like some people here have trouble putting up opposing arguments. Instead it's simply watered down by things like, "You're ignorant." and so on. Give me reasons why Flash development for websites is a GOOD idea. Give me at least 3 reasons. I'm going to be flat out honest, nobody is going to want to use a site that is Flash based. I know I wouldn't, and nobody I talked to about the issue (who also web develop) said they wouldn't, etc. I don't care how much hardware you cram in your PC, or how much RAM you get, when you go to a site with Flash content, it STILL takes NEARLY just as much time to load as it did 3 years ago. Flash games still take time to load, videos do, etc. Most of it depends on your connection, yes, but people fail to remember that not everyone has a 25mbps connection that can load Flash content quickly.

While convenient for the developers, Flash is NOT convenient for the end users, the ones that really matter.

Pretty much what I've said is what I've learned and what I've been taught. I go to school for web development, and one of the first things he told us not to do, is develop using Flash or Silverlight. It teaches bad coding ethic, and it also tells us to pretty much ignore cross-browser / system compatibility.

Where credit is due: The site is a REALLY good idea. I myself have a few ideas that I'm going to start to work with, based on yours, because it's a good idea. I don't like iGoogle because it doesn't give you as much freedom, as when I want a homepage, I want a page that'll let me do whatever I want. However, your issue stems from the fact that you're using Flash, and you're using cookies. Once the user clears their cache and cookies, their settings will be gone. The only real way to ensure that the settings will stay, is to make a user registration system, but if you don't mind you can use IP addresses, but the issue still exists with those who have dynamic IP's (the majority of the world).

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 29th May 2011 23:22
Quote: "No, it's just a well known fact that any web developer who has been in the business and knows their way around things will NEVER use Flash"


Well sometimes there's no alternative to using Flash. For example if you want to make an uploader on your site that accepts multiple files, Flash is one of the only ways to do (even Facebook and Google use Uploadify or variations, which are built with Flash). Like I said, it mostly depends on the requirements and the skills of the developer.

Quote: "It seems like some people here have trouble putting up opposing arguments. Instead it's simply watered down by things like, "You're ignorant." and so on."


Um, if you read what I originally was referring to, it was you assuming that people who use Flash haven't been in the business for that long. Do you want me to requote you? You were basically calling him ignorant, without using the word

And don't confuse me with someone who would make an entire site in Flash. I agree with you that jQuery is the way to go. I took issue with you assuming that inexperience is why someone would use Flash. Flash has its uses too.

Quote: "PHP and AJAX / jQuery can do just enough, if not more than Flash."


I think you missed my point on the PHP comment. PHP is a server-side language that dynamically creates HTML, which works in tandem with jQuery *OR* Flash. PHP is in another category, so you should stop saying "PHP and jQuery" as an alternative to Flash. It's more like "jQuery" is an alternative to Flash.


Software Engineer - Metamoki
crispex
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 29th May 2011 23:34
Quote: "You were basically calling him ignorant, without using the word"


Not really. You're right, anytime something generally can't be done in jQuery it can normally be done in Flash. I won't dispute the fact that Flash has better file management. However, the task he is performing can be done in jQuery. My way of thinking: If there is a better alternative, go for that. Never stick behind just because something is easier.

I just now realized I've had a typo in my signature for the past 3 years.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-21 20:35:31
Your offset time is: 2025-05-21 20:35:31