Re: more ex-Screen Scraper? -- MIDRANGE-L

Joe,

I don't know if you are misreading my messages, or if you are using feigned
ignorance of what I said to start a debate. I did NOT compare tools - I
compared projects with the SAME tools.

As for your comparison, I will let the graphics stand for themselves. You
have reinforced that beauty and "good-looking" are most definitely a matter
of opinion, but you also prove my point that green screen developers should
not DESIGN graphical user interfaces - let qualified people do that. And
yes, most tools can produce one form or another of a GUI - and although I
said that was dependent upon the developer, not the tool, I was attempting
to be diplomatic - some tools do produce basic ugliness to confuse the user
further.

To be fair, you should have also posted these pages.
http://www.looksoftware.com/webena.htm
http://www.looksoftware.com/integr2.htm
http://www.looksoftware.com/extend1.htm
Again, I will let your comparison speak for itself.

It would also help if you used a better definition of newlook than thick
client. newlook may not be a thin client in that it does not operate purely
on HTML, but it certainly is a rich client (on a diet). If you define thick
as the size installed on a PC, then you need to revise your definition.
There is a comparison here between newlook and its competitors - newlook
requires only a small footprint client which can be web deployed without
user interaction. There is no thick server code involved in the
implementation.

In the end, I think you are right. newlook does not compete with other
products, simply because the way it allows graphical enablement, integration
and extension is simply not possible with any other product in a reasonable
amount of time.
Yours,
Trevor
www.looksoftware.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
Subject: RE: more ex-Screen Scraper?


> > From: trevor perry
> >
> > 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.
>
> Not comparing tools, Trevor.  You made a statement that you provided a GUI
> for 600 panels in four weeks, and implied that it was good-looking, cheap
> and easy to maintain.  You compared a tool (yours, implied) to what was
> obviously a poorly run project.  This was the "stacked deck" I talked
about.
> As to the comments about look, cost and maintainability, no product is
> perfect, mine included.  I just said these issues should be reviewed.
You're
> the one comparing newlook and PSC/400.  PSC/400 is not a GUI, either, it's
a
> web enabling product with GUI capabilities.  In it's 5250 emulation mode,
> PSC/400 would have web enabled those 600 programs overnight.  They would
> have looked like the old screens:
>
> http://www.plutabrothers.com/images/sp-5.gif
>
>
> > 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".
>
> Again, I wasn't comparing newlook directly to PSC/400, since newlook
doesn't
> even compete in the same space as PSC/400.  It's a thick client in a
> browser, and it's automatic conversion mode is far from pretty:
>
> http://www.looksoftware.com/samp1.htm
>
> Of course, you can make it pretty, but that takes intervention.  But with
> intervention, you can make PSC/400 as pretty as you want, and it can be
done
> by HTML designers, using the tool of their choice:
>
> http://www.plutabrothers.com/images/sp-3.gif
> http://www.plutabrothers.com/images/sp-4.gif
> http://www.plutabrothers.com/images/sp-2-1.gif
>
> Not only that, it's quite easy to have all three of these versions (and
> more) available at one time.  Not sure how newlook handles that.
>
> And again, this is not a comparison just of newlook and PSC/400.  Brad's
> e-RPG approach, Nathan's relation-web, and even Net.Data all can provide
> much the same results, because they're all based on the open standards of
> HTML, as opposed to the proprietary ActiveX component of newlook.  And
> because they're HTML based, these solutions are much easier to integrate
> into an overall look and feel.
>
> Joe Pluta
> http://www.plutabrothers.com
>