In this blog post I discuss Badge Builder, a handy AIR app that enables you to easily create AIR badges for your Adobe AIR apps. URL: www.aceontech.com
With Apple TV out of the gate, Google most probably found it safe to re-announce Google TV -- their shot at the living room. Essentially yet another set-top box, Google TV will sit between your cable box and your TV, supposedly offering the user access to internet-based resources like web searches, YouTube and other streaming content - in conjunction with your Cable/Satellite provider's traditional programming.
Purely technically, this box intercepts the cable boxe's HDMI-signal and superimposes its interface onto it, before sending it out to the television. To my knowledge, Google TV is the first bit of technology to do this. From a technological perspective, very innovative. From a conceptual perspective: not so much.
Google seems to be pushing the "one-screen" thing, but this doesn't make sense to me. At least not in TV's current state. Current cable boxes are painfully slow because they lack processing horsepower, which makes it highly dislikable for browsing the web etc. Also, who wants -another- remote on the coffee table?
The living room is a difficult area to conquer. People (the "normals", no us geeks) are set in their ways and expect an appliance-like experience from their television sets. No glorified set-top box / computer is going to be able to offer this, thus I don't expect Google TV nor Apple TV to succeed in the near future. Remember that Microsoft has been trying to break its way into the den for *years* with Windows Media Center (and extenders like the XBOX360), to no avail. Then why would Google succeed with a frankenstein-like interface, superimposed over the TV screen? This is just Google desperately rummaging around to find other revenue streams, 's all. Understandable. But futile IMO.
Just my two cents.
RantLocator.instance.GoogleTVRant[1].end(); | Google gave a live demonstration of Google TV at Berlin’s IFA Tuesday, and CEO Eric Schmidt promised it would be a couch potato’s dream come true. |
| “It’s going to ruin your evening.” |
| Google TV is essentially an interface, blurring the distinctions between programming you get from your cable or satellite provider with that you get web content, with search |
| Google, which demonstrated the service on a generic Logitech box with a DishNetwork DVR, is working on custom remote control hardware for the Chrome-powered Google TV |
| you’ll also be able to use your Google-powered Android phone — or even an iPhone — as a Google TV remote |
| Google believes that keyboard-less search reduces the friction for web-based inquiries that it thinks people want to make concurrently with watching TV — and on the same screen instead of the tablet you have on your coffee table or the smartphone in your pocket. |
| It will also not act like a DVR, so for pausing and fast-forwarding you’ll still need your cable company’s box |
I've said it before and will say it again: I hate Helvetica and Helvetica Neue. Argh.
Myself being a hybrid of sorts, i.e. I'm a web developer / RIA developer that also happens to design, I found this posting at TechRadar to be quite amusing. Jokingly, it discusses the frustrations many web developers are confronted with when implementing web designs from non-developer oriented designers.
Knowing what it's like to have to implement designs made by others, I wholeheartedly agree with some of the highlighted points. But while reading the list, I must admit I'm often just as guilty. I'm probably driving myself crazy by over-designing stuff like rounded corners, gradients, transparencies and break-out artwork. Then again, I drive myself crazy many a time :-P.
When designing a web site or application, it's easy to go over-board as a designer, thinking "oh, this looks pretty". And "wow, that's neat". But once you get to sit at the other end of the table - in the developer seat (like I often do) - it dawns on you that a lot of things are very difficult to accomplish in the respective language/platform (be it HTML/CSS/JS, Flash/Flex, [your favorite solution]).
Rounded corners, for instance, are still a big pain in the butt. Sure, CSS3 rounded corners are slowly catching on, but it's not a standard yet, just like HTML5 (see previous post).
The author speaks of "needing to do things the dirty way", and that message certainly strikes home. The obvious instances of this are things like background gradients. If one would know the lengths a developer has to go to make this work, in a clean way, one surely wouldn't design it.. Because CSS only allows one background graphic at a time, what you'll often need to do is nest multiple DIVs, with each a different background. Dirty indeed.
But well, if we're honest, these aren't real technical issues. Some things just need more tinkering than others. If the designer like to over-design, and the client likes it, perhaps throw the designer a bone and take on the challenge  (or have them implement their own design for once, that’ll teach ‘em).
As for the bad naming schemes or intricate folder structures in PSDs: yeah, I do that too ;-). | visual designers, here's a list of 20 things that drive developers crazy. |
| rounded corners to every single element on the page |
| Use a lot of breakout images with transparency. Web developers love graphics breaking out of boxes and columns. Bonus points if you add text wrapping around images. |
| Use Lorem Ipsum instead of real copy. And make sure the reserved space is not big enough for real copy. |
14. Name all your files 'final', plus a date and a random letter (final-2010-12-01a.psd, final- 2010-12-01r.psd, final-2010-12-02b.psd). |
20. And finally, this is the most important thing: don't learn anything about HTML, CSS, JavaScript or browser issues. The less you know about it, the more important we seem. |
We also work with people who, because they don't quite understand what we do or how we do it, regard us with a certain bootlicking awe. |
| Unfortunately, some of those people are also the same people who tell us what to do. (Will the visual designers please stand up?). |
Hi there! Found my first real use for Amplify: an eye-opening discussion about HTML5 versus RIA systems like Flash/Flex/AIR and Silverlight.
This InfoWorld article talks briefly about the promise of HTML5 and the potential problems with it due its slow-moving standards body WHATWG. The acknowledgement that HTML5 won't really be finalized until 2022 made me blink twice. Or thrice. Seriously, 2022? What good is a web standard if it's always going to be behind by decades? Also note that development on HTML5 was started as far back as 2004, and we're only now seeing little bits and pieces being implemented by browser makers.
This prospect has completely killed off any enthusiasm I had for HTML5. It seems that in the ever changing world of the web, HTML5 will never be able to live up to its promises. Its development is just too slow. This eye-opener neatly ties into the remainder of the article, which comprises of a thorough side-by-side comparison of the leading RIA framework providers Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight.
When faced with the naked facts of HTML5's preemptive failure, the grumblings in the industry about RIA platforms dying, are becoming more and more unfounded. It seems only proprietary frameworks like Flash and Silverlight can provide excellent development and design tools, desperately needed by the RIA developer community. These frameworks at least provide a consistent environment in which rich internet apps can run, guaranteeing they’ll look and feel the same across browsers and operating systems. This is something I don't see happening with HTML5 any time soon.
Any web developer will acknowledge the fact that developing with HTML, CSS and JavaScript is an utter pain in the butt. There are huge inconsistencies to work around with markup, CSS, fonts and JavaScript code. My brain hurts when I think about it. I had hopes for HTML5. Not anymore though.
The very nature of the web, the fact that it's so ad-hoc, makes it difficult yet interesting to develop for. No, I won't stop developing web apps. But I won't dismiss RIA either. Each technology has its uses and perks. The trick is to choose the right tech for the right right. Don't ditch proprietary (and often superior) platforms just because HTML5 is the "open" way to go. It will impair your ability to deliver truly innovative web apps/RIAs.
For now, Flash and Silverlight are still superior to anything HTML5 has to offer. And it's going to stay that way for a while, I think. A long while.
Reposted to my blog: http://aceontech.com/2010/08/27/html5-no-actual-w3c-recommendation-status-until-at-least-2022/ HTML5, with its promises of plug-in free browsing, a 3D graphics and animation API, built-in video and audio tags, an offline data store, and Web Workers to manage long-running background processes, would seem to spell the end of proprietary RIA (rich Internet application) platforms. But the reports of the death of Flash and Silverlight, as the saying goes, have been greatly exaggerated. |
| Work on HTML5 was first started in 2004, and it isn't anticipated to have actual W3C Recommendation status until at least 2022. |
| The Web will continue to change, and it won't be the standards bodies who are leading the way. |
| Support for the new HTML standard will come in dribs and drabs that only complicate the developer's job. |
| can't even agree on which video codecs to support, leaving choices for interoperability to the individual browser makers.Read more at www.infoworld.com |
Wondering whether to check out amplify.com or not.
|
URL: www.aceontech.com
