Re: more ex-Screen Scraper?

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
>