|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 1/19/2007
Posts: 5
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
|
How about using Silverlight 2.0 for the Umbraco UI?
Silverlight is supported on Windows, Mac + Linux (With Monolight). It would be possible to create a rich user interface with the same experience from IE on Windows to Firefox on Linux.
The SilverUI-project could be a new project, because the UI could make use of the Webservices in Umbravo v3? A complete separation of UI and Logic.
I'm aware of the issues regarding controls - such as HTMLEditor/RichTextBox Editor, but besides that, I think that a Silverlight UI would be great for Umbraco!
|
|
Rank: Umbracoholic
Joined: 7/20/2006
Posts: 1,018
Location: Charleston, West Virginia, United States
|
I believe the next rewrite of the UI will consist on the use of YUI to create a more functional and dynamic user experience.
In my own opinion, I would not like to see the ui be dependent upon a browser plug-in. Many times, users do not have the ability to install software on their systems, or do not feel technical enough.
• 2007 - 2008 MVP • Charleston, WV, USA • umbracoholic since Dec. 2004 (v.2.0) •
Achieved umbracoholic status on 2008-04-25
|
|
Rank: Addict
Joined: 7/19/2006
Posts: 656
Location: Århus, Denmark
|
I agree with Casey on this one. Basing the UI on silverlight would drastically reduce accessibility and the ease of extensibility. For example if you wanted to write your own datatype, you would have to create it as a silverlight control. I much prefer the UI is kept in html/Javascript which will keep it accessible by a wide range of clients like Nintendo Wii (!).
Morten Bock - Level 2 certified - My danish blog with a few english posts | CodeGarden on Facebook
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 1/19/2007
Posts: 5
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
|
"I believe the next rewrite of the UI will consist on the use of YUI to create a more functional and dynamic user experience."
To create a more functional and dynamic user experience its my opinion that we need Silverlight for that. With Silverlight it would be possible to create a more desktop-like experience, with animations, multiple file uploading, progress bars, etc..
I believe that Silverlight would become a browser plugin just like Adobe Reader & Adobe Flash - a must-have for any user. Silverlight would be used for ads, web interfaces, controls, pictures galleries and so. I don't think the plugin installation would become a problem.
Furthermore why limit the user experience because you want to support a number of devices, that aren't going to be used with Umbraco. Umbraco is ment to be used from a computer with a keyboard & mouse. - A desktop computer. Not a console such as PS3 or Wii.
Regarding the custom controls, I don't think that would be a big issue, because today we are using HTML+CSS+JS, with Silverlight its all about XAML - nothing more. The ease of extensibility is not changed. Of course you should learn a new platform/language, but is that really a issue compared with the UI-features you get?
|
|
Rank: Fanatic
Joined: 7/22/2006
Posts: 205
Location: Randers, Denmark
|
I must say I dislike the idea of a Silverlight backend. Silverlight has yet to prove that it is not just another buzzword. It is going to take some years before it will be widely accepted, but one could hope that it will be standard in IE8 once it hit the streets. You're right auchenberg that Silverlight may create a better experience for the user, but I really don't see any problems with the Umbraco UI as it is today. If you make umbraco - or any other cms for that matter, dependant on a non-standard* plugin, you remove one of the strengths about web-based software .. the fact that it can run everywhere.. I've seen many places where system administrators restrict the users from installing extra plugins, because of security reasons for instance. I also dislike the idea of forcing people to install extra plugins on their system. *) A plugin not available in the browser from the start
Dansk sprogfil til Umbraco her: http://www.freestyledesign.dk/downloads/da.zip
|
|
Rank: Umbracoholic
Joined: 7/20/2006
Posts: 1,018
Location: Charleston, West Virginia, United States
|
auchenberg wrote:
To create a more functional and dynamic user experience its my opinion that we need Silverlight for that. With Silverlight it would be possible to create a more desktop-like experience, with animations, multiple file uploading, progress bars, etc..
Many of the dynamic features you are specifying are nothing more than bells and whistles. Also, you do not have to have Silverlight to have a desktop experience. Look at the different javascript libraries that are out there. EXTJS, YUI, Tibco GI; All of these are JS based and provide the same level of experience if implemented. Heck, some of them have means to run as a desktop app if utilized, such as Adobe Air, or even HTA. While silverlight may be the future MS is banking on, I don't feel the community and users are ready for such a change. We should focus on the core application, making it more stable, and more extensive. If you want to make a Silverlight backend, create a project that does it. The beauty of umbraco is that it is capable of modification due to the open source nature.
• 2007 - 2008 MVP • Charleston, WV, USA • umbracoholic since Dec. 2004 (v.2.0) • Achieved umbracoholic status on 2008-04-25
|
|
Rank: Addict
Joined: 3/17/2008
Posts: 730
Location: Nyborg, Denmark
|
There'll never be a(n official) Silverlight version of the umbraco ui. RIA's like Silverlight and Abobe's AIR is - to use Microsofts own terminology - "cancer" for the web and people drinking the cool aid are
1) Not aware of just how far the html standards has come in terms of dynamic content and interaction (ajax, rest, etc). In umbraco we already got progress bars (we've had them since 2001), we could get multi-file uploading and we do got a few animations and I don't think more would be beneficial in any way
2) Not aware of how much even farer we would be if MS had spend as many resources on html5 and a better browser than on silverlight. Thank god Mozilla, Opera and Safari is there so MS are forced to trying to keep up.
If we build umbraco on top of something proprietary we're suddenly depending on a 3rd party. By basing umbraco on standards we get a much broader support on a lot of platforms which will mean alot over the next few years with mobile handsets and embedded browsers catching up really fast.
I'm sure that there's a few cases where one could justify using a RIA, but I'm not holding my breath. It's like optimizing a site for IE - how's doing that today?
Jeeeez, did I really start this :-)
|
|
Rank: Fanatic
Joined: 7/19/2006
Posts: 343
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
|
Ouch Niels, you really seem to dislike the RIA trend... I agree with that you never should use something just because it's possible, but what if your application (not talking about Umbraco here) will be greatly improved inside, or not at all possible outside a RIA framework? I can agree with that Silverlight (according to the plan) might have it's current strengths mainly in multimedia but the upcoming versions offers so much more when it comes to true application features. I don't agree with that silverlight is all evil and bad, on the contrary I think that Silverlight ( once in V2) will be a great tool for moving traditonal Desktop apps to the web and create new business models in the future... Applications that currently only works really good in a desktop environment might be given an equally good user experience inside a RIA framework. In many cases this will be the turning point that might make it possible to move these apps to the "browser" in the first place... When you're comparing Adobe's AIR framework with silverlight you are missing something essential, AIR is not a browser plugin, it's a Desktop Runtime Environment just like any other but with one major difference; AIR gives web developers a robust and standards compliant (AIR includes WebKit, the same rendering engine that Safari uses) desktop environment where they can build "real applications" with web techniques like HTML and Javascript. Of course you can also use the Flash and Flex frameworks, otherwise Adobe wouldn't have been interested in the first place ;). Being a follower of the RIA discussions I would also like to add to the discussion that all of these techniques has a given place when/if you would like to create something that just isn't possible with AJAX ( Picnik, Aviary Tools), or you might want a superior user experience then these plattforms will come to your rescue. BUT... Is Silverlight good for Umbraco? No I can't see any real reason for that either, but I will "never ever" say that RIAs are all bad, cause there are so many more applications that will reach the browser in a near future thanks to the RIA platforms. If we at all should discuss a richer experience I think Adobe AIR is a better way, since you could use and mix the best from both HTML/AJAX and Flex to gradually create a very nice Desktop Application for you daily Website admin needs... // ; ) Kalle
" - Yeah I'd like to share your point of view, as long as it's my view too... ( http://www.d-a-d.dk/lyrics/pointofview)
|
|
Rank: Enthusiast
Joined: 8/31/2007
Posts: 30
Location: Utrecht NL
|
What about using Ext JS for the next version of the Umbraco UI? I think it's better suitable then YUI. http://extjs.com/products/extjs/ provides some nice examples of Ext Js applications. Lots and lots of UI elements very suitable for Umbraco like treeviews, tabs, panels, drag-n-drop etc. all build-in. It has a very slick and nice application-like look and feel, while fully standards compliant. I think the most important thing would be to use just one js libary or framework instead of several as the current version of Umbraco UI does.
|
|
Rank: Fanatic
Joined: 7/19/2006
Posts: 343
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
|
Seems that Ext JS has some serious problem parsing Unicode characters at least according to this slickspeed line up: http://www.domassistant.com/slickspeed-unicode/
" - Yeah I'd like to share your point of view, as long as it's my view too... ( http://www.d-a-d.dk/lyrics/pointofview)
|
|
Rank: Addict
Joined: 3/17/2008
Posts: 730
Location: Nyborg, Denmark
|
The RIA is not a trend - it's marketing bullocks and luckily only a minority have drunk the kool aid. Those of you drinking it will feel embarrassed in a few years when they’re gone, so get out while you still have a chance ;-) The worst feature about any current RIAs is that it's proprietary, which means that if you choose a RIA you’re in for a vendor lock-in, the thing we’re finally about to get rid of thanks to the web. And I seriously doubt that you get a much better user experience with a RIA as they still run in a sandbox (even though you *might* have a chance to change those security settings, but who wants to do that?). So while you *might* get an app the runs a couple of percent faster, you can’t do the things you expect a desktop app to do, like dragging files from your box etc. And seriously – who needs fancy animations in an app that’s about editing content? And finally, the rendering view in an RIA (with the exception of AIR if you just use the webkit but what’s gained then?) is different from the web, because it’s not the web. So fonts, images, etc will be shown using another engine when rendering than when the content is presented to an end user. RIAs have never been a trend and is simply overrated. For more info on my opinions on RIAs take a look at this blogpost: http://umbraco.org/blog/2008/4/23/silverlight-is-the-worst-piece-of-junk-ever-from-redmond
Jeeeez, did I really start this :-)
|
|
Rank: Addict
Joined: 3/17/2008
Posts: 730
Location: Nyborg, Denmark
|
Regarding extjs, the decision on YUI was based on the need for a solid js *framework*, not js components which is why we settled for YUI.
YUI is much more flexible and elegant from an architecture point of view than extjs. While the latter will get you up and running with something very quickly, your applications will always have the extjs feel.
Secondly Extjs wasn't really open source at the time we evaluated. They had a proxy license before the open source license (the LGPL) which meant that if you used extjs in a commercial project or a framework (which umbraco is) you're not allowed to use the open source license.
They've switched to GPL v3 now, but it's still a bit hard to understand exactly how their license should be understood (they're working on that and I know for one how hard it is to create a license that combines trust with the fear of commercial forking/misuse - but until it's completely settled that alone is a valid argument for avoiding that ).
Jeeeez, did I really start this :-)
|
|
Rank: Fanatic
Joined: 7/19/2006
Posts: 343
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
|
Funny discussion this ; ) Especially since Adobe today (May 1st) announced the "OpenScreen" project. This projects focuses in letting the swf/flv specifications free - without any licensing restrictions - for anyone to develop players / plugins that uses the file specifications...but since Adobe has made the specification this isn't open when it comes to who defines the specs, just like PDF and GIF isn't "open" either. On the other hand: Since Adobe is very open and keen towards their user base and their needs I wouldn't call them less open than the W3C, on the contrary IMO they're more open than W3C when it comes to helping the developer community get their work done. Anyway Niels, you are absolutely right about the vendor lock-in in most cases, but from now on it seems that anyone can build a Flash player without getting sued and in my opinion this is very good. Flash is just another technology for delivering content, but since it is a very robust environment a developers life is made much simpler (simple = lazy or wise? who's to judge?) since all you need to know is MXML and ActionScript (besides usability, design skills etc obviously). This gives an application environment that's easier to maintain than a C#, HTML, CSS, JSLibraryX, JSLibraryY + an unlimited number of browsers etc... environments... I have absolutely no problem in seeing why this is tempting for many developers... no it's not a standard specified by W3C but neither is PDF and Animated GIFs, but they are used none the less to deliver content and no one yells "proprietary" when a GIF is moving around, do they? ; ) If the discussion should be all political I think all parts of the web should be included. Why do we use PDF's? We want a consistent, cross platform environment to publish our content... Why do we use animated GIFs? Because it's simpler then a JS animation? Because it isn't Flash? And finally, I just love many AJAX apps out there due to their rich user experience , but considering that many organisations blocks all active content for security reasons, Javascript isn't more likely to work in these organisations than Flash or any other "extension" to the basic HTML format, unless you... Quote:...change those security settings, but who wants to do that? // ; ) Kalle PS. You actually can drag-n-drop files between your AIR app and your desktop
" - Yeah I'd like to share your point of view, as long as it's my view too... ( http://www.d-a-d.dk/lyrics/pointofview)
|
|
Rank: Aficionado
Joined: 9/17/2007
Posts: 110
|
Personally, I love, love, love jQuery. It's not RIA but who cares? What it does is allow you to create very, very advanced client side functionality in (often) just a few lines of code.
I think you should think about rewriting the user interface using jQuery, jQueryUI and / or similar use of jQuery Plugins. If it's good enough for the BBC homepage (www.bbc.co.uk)...
I also use YUI every day and it *rocks*. But for many, many cases, use jQuery instead. They both live and work together no worries. Anyway, YUI... I absolutely cannot over-emphasise how useful it is. Just don't be tooo taken by the hype ;)
Around 1996, I worked to create a pitch for a new company called Goldfish (credit cards). It was all iFrames and ActiveX layouts (or whatever it was called - like VB on the client using an ActiveX control in IE(2?)). Back then I heard the same enthusiasm we hear now for Silverlight and Air. I also remember something else; channels... who remembers Pointcast? Exactly.
Forget the hype and stick to the fundamentals... you'll always have what works to fall back on when the hype moves onto the next flavour de jour.
Richard
2 * 3 * 3 * 37 : The prime factorisation of The Beast.
|
|
Rank: Enthusiast
Joined: 3/16/2008
Posts: 11
|
Funny that most people here prefer HTML/CSS/jscript. At work we use silverlight 2.0beta1 regulary and i love it. Offcourse its not perfect (yet) but it does allow a clean seperation between GUI and backend and is capable to provide very rich userinterface to the enduser Although is known mainly known for all the animation/video stuff, its surely fully capable to build desktop like application or CMS front/backend GUIs like umbraco's In fact, using some of these controls will make the task a no-brainer. Sadly these controls are not opensource, so perhaps it better to write your own ones Anyway, why limit the GUI to 1 particular type of technology? Why not have a HTML/CSS/jscript backend GUI using frameworks like ExtJs/YUI/... AND also have a silverlight backend for those capable running it? I'm sure the silverlight backend will provide a much better user expierence in the end since you dont get all those page loads anymore Erwin
|
|
|
Guest |