Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?

As I understand it .NET 2.0 is going to be available on both those
platforms. Not being arrogant, being realistic -- unless your business
targets that specific small group of people but it really is just a matter
of where the money is at.

The browser (IE or whatever you choice) is a NOT a user friendly
environment -- some users don't even know where the "Back button" is, nor
where the settings are in IE to enable a site to work, nor the settings to
enable pictures to display or not. Then there is the issue of the 100's of
activex components that get loaded and install. If you hadn't checked
around 1 in 5 people use the web, that is pretty pathetic. The number #1
reason they don't use it is because their affraid of spyware and viruses, #2
is because they don't understand how to use it -- and I don't blame them.

Sure I can code a great site but I can't manage the client's IE. I've seen
rich clients that take minutes to load and many that don't even render
because of client (IE) issues (either not updated, missing patches,
corrupted activex components, etc. etc.). It maybe too late to bring back
user confidence, but continuing with HTML rendered intefaces is definitely
NOT the future -- it'll be a combination of HTML web site for static links
to the real interface (.NET 2.0 windows forms apps) to do the work and do it
faster, more secure, and with a hell of a lot less development time to
implement.

"Peter Rilling" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uI%23V89B$FHA.292@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> And what about Linux and Mac and other platforms. It is arrogant to
> assume that all people visiting ASPX pages are only Windows users.
>
> All technology has its place.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "IE client by definition is not user friendly".
> The browser has nothing to do with whether a site is friendly or not. Now
> being a website does limit its potential since it can only stream HTML and
> other browser technology, but if you program it right, then it works fine.
> I have seen some rich clients that would make Frank Lloyd Wright spin in
> his grave.
>
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23gqpHyB$FHA.140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> VS 2005 I have:
>> ClickOnce deployment
>> User's that hate and or don't want to use an IE Client (don't blame
>> them)
>>
>> I don't see how ASPX web pages are going to survive? With .NET 2.0 and
>> clickonce deployment my app is 427KB (even with modem dialup speed it
>> doesn't take long to download) -- the user gets a very friendly secure
>> WindowsForm app (most of them don't even notice they're not under IE
>> anymore) that performs considerably faster than any ASP.NET app.
>>
>> The road map as I see it:
>> IE client -- back to static just clickonce links that open up
>> WindowsForms apps
>> Vista -- .NET 2.0 built in (no need to download)
>> WebServices -- called from WindowsForms apps (keeps it secure and
>> firewall friendly)
>> WindowsForms are a HELL of a lot more secure (no IE attached activex
>> components, no data miners, click monitors, etc. etc.)
>>
>> The way I see it -- user interaction is going to move back to
>> WindowsForms since the IE client by definition is just NOT user friendly,
>> NOT programmer friendly, and has a ton of other issues surrounding it in
>> terms of security and performance and flexibility.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, web development will still exist (web services and
>> basic static content), but I believe anyone doing serious business
>> applications using the web will migrate to this approach -- it really is
>> a win win.
>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Loading