Stuart McLachlan
stuart at lexacorp.com.pg
Tue Aug 11 16:37:43 CDT 2009
Doesn't matter what *you* use - the lcd is the just the poorest performing browser you have to design for when building a web site or web-based application. The LCD at present would have to be IE6. Based on Marketshare: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2 IE8 only has 12% of the market IE6 still has the highest market share with more than 1 in 4 using it. It's the most popular browser out there as well as certainly being the "lowest common denominator". -- Stuart On 11 Aug 2009 at 11:41, jwcolby wrote: > > 4) Now that we have IE8 as our lowest-common-denominator browser... > > YOU have IE as the lowest common denominator. I have firefox (holding steady at about 20% > worldwide). Others have Chrome, or ... > > Web browsers HAVE no lowest common denominator. And they don't all do the same things when... > > John W. Colby > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > > Kenneth Ismert wrote: > > John, > > > > Microsoft just bought Office.com to further push its web-based Office > > offerings. They are in no way abandoning their desktop offerings, but they > > feel the need to try to counteract the movement of Google, Zoho, etc. in the > > web-based office applications market. That's indicative of the trend. > > > > There are a number of projects afoot which allow a web application to 'fail > > over' to a local data store when the internet is down, and re-sync when it > > is back up. > > > > As for your list of downsides: > > 1) Dozens of technologies > > On the browser, I can really think of three important ones: HTML, CSS and > > JavaScript. Oh, and these are internationally-defined standards, which is > > the critical advantage of this 'thin-client' technology over the older > > versions. Add a JavaScript framework, and you have four things you need to > > become familiar with to do a good web front-end. On the back end, your task > > is really no more difficult than coding unbound forms. And you have a wide > > choice of server-side application frameworks to help you there. > > > > 2) Server load > > Yes -- it is a server technology, isn't it? But Access places severe demands > > on the network, so we really can't claim an advantage there. > > > > 3) Integration issues > > I guess I'll have to hear more to understand what you mean here. > > > > 4) UI clumsy to say the least > > In the IE6 days, yes to a much greater extent. Now that we have IE8 as our > > lowest-common-denominator browser, you would be surprised at the > > sophistication of UI that can be achieved with standards-based HTML, CSS and > > a little JavaScript. Certainly more than adequate for the average data > > application user. > > > > 5) User UI preferences harder to deal with > > With CSS you have far greater ability to change the look of a web interface > > than anything you can get in Access. HTML forms can dynamically re-scale, > > and the font size can be dynamically changed, which Access can't easily do > > (but, I haven't used 2003 or 2007, so that may have changed). Plus there is > > built-in support for people with different abilities. > > > > To be fair, the one thing Access has that the web still lacks is a > > compelling reports capability. I've looked at a number of web-based reports > > frameworks, and there is nothing that leaps out as a 'this is it' web > > reports alternative. > > > > -Ken > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com