|
Joe, I think you may have misunderstood my message. I certainly appreciate your concern for me "stacking the deck" and that you would like to get into some comparison of the tools, but I believe this is not the forum for that. The two solutions were BOTH my customers. BOTH were using the same tool - that was my point. I was making the same point that you just made. Regardless of the tool, the project itself can impact the cost of a GUI. In my example, same product, same application size, different developers and approach - one month vs. twelve. Initial development and maintenance are the two main areas that are underestimated in this type of implementation. As for the comment of "good looking" and "acceptable interface", I do have a response... newlook is NOT a graphical user interface, it is a tool that allows you to ~provide~ a GUI - the same as most of the tools we have been discussing. It does not make a green screen application good looking or not - the developers do that. Mostly, that is because they stick to their tried-and-true green screen interface rules: 1. There is more room on the screen, stick a field in it... 2. There is no more room, abbreviate, now stick a field there (this may be funny, but it is sadly true). Graphical user interface development requires preparation of standards and involving someone with graphical design skills - you have all seen the difference between a good web site and a bad web site.. The TOOL does not make the interface look good or bad, the developer does. One final note - from your remarks, it does appear that you do not understand how newlook works. newlook already is "a UI generator that is customizable". Yours, Trevor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> Subject: RE: Is anybody using Seagull's new Transidiom software (Screen Scraper)? > > From: trevor perry > > > > You can guess which one looked the > > best, was the cheapest development and the easiest to maintain... > > Actually, no I can't guess, even though you stacked the deck pretty well. > > "Looked the best" depends on your idea of good looking. Some people think > newlook is an acceptable interface, some people don't. Some people think > WebFacing looks good, some don't. The only sure way is to pilot the project > and let your users see if they're still productive on the new interface. > And the more flexible the interface the better, which is why most people > like PSC/400's capabilities. > > Cheapest development depends on your definition of cheapest. Startup cost? > Consulting costs? Workstation costs? User-based licensing? Integration > into development? Change management? Multi-site deployment? Total cost of > ownership is a pretty large issue. > > The easiest to maintain is also an issue. It depends on the tool, > certainly. A rules-based UI generator has certain benefits, but falls down > when a program breaks the rules. A completely custom interface is the most > flexible, but requires more work when the program changes. The best of both > worlds would be a UI generator that is customizable. Nathan's snippet > approach is one of the best along those lines, and in fact we're reviewing > that kind of technology as the front end to PSC/400. > > Joe Pluta > www.plutabrothers.com >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.