Flow charts, get your flow charts.
June 29, 2006 2:15 PM Subscribe
Mac users have the excellent Omnigraffle, Windows users the ubiquitous Visio. Now there's an AJAX diagramming tool called Gliffy. What's next in the Office suite for AJAXification?
Damn, I mostly use Visio for electrical schematics, and this doesn't do schematics.
However, I shall quiety harbour a hopeful suspicion that it doesn't do schematics yet :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 2:29 PM on June 29, 2006
However, I shall quiety harbour a hopeful suspicion that it doesn't do schematics yet :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 2:29 PM on June 29, 2006
Ajax Project would be interesting. Is there an ODF spec for such an idea?
Uh, OneNote, although there's a few ajax "sticky note" applications that approximate the functionality.
InfoPath. I would really like to see an OSS app that duplicates InfoPath but on the web rather than through its retarded form filler.
posted by boo_radley at 2:35 PM on June 29, 2006
Uh, OneNote, although there's a few ajax "sticky note" applications that approximate the functionality.
InfoPath. I would really like to see an OSS app that duplicates InfoPath but on the web rather than through its retarded form filler.
posted by boo_radley at 2:35 PM on June 29, 2006
What's next in the Office suite for AJAXification?
Well there's a spot of mildew in the kitchen that Custodial Services seems to keep missing.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:45 PM on June 29, 2006
Well there's a spot of mildew in the kitchen that Custodial Services seems to keep missing.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:45 PM on June 29, 2006
yeah, what part of this is AJAX? that's the second buzz-happy misidentification of AJAX on MeFi today. Do folks just not under stand what the meaning of AJAX is?
posted by casconed at 2:56 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by casconed at 2:56 PM on June 29, 2006
He was a Greek hero, wasn't he?
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2006
AJAX now more buzz than substance. Who would've ever imagined that?
It is weird how it's become the grabwire jargon for everything which moves on a web page, even when, in this case, it's something as generic and ubiquitous and broadly recognised as Flash.
Animated GIF != AJAX
just to head you off there.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 3:06 PM on June 29, 2006
It is weird how it's become the grabwire jargon for everything which moves on a web page, even when, in this case, it's something as generic and ubiquitous and broadly recognised as Flash.
Animated GIF != AJAX
just to head you off there.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 3:06 PM on June 29, 2006
Gliffy is developed in Laszlo.. Laszlo is shipping AJAX support for their compiler supposedly at the end of this year.
But until then, does it really matter if it is Flash or not, as long as it works well in all browsers on all platforms?
posted by rajbot at 3:07 PM on June 29, 2006
But until then, does it really matter if it is Flash or not, as long as it works well in all browsers on all platforms?
posted by rajbot at 3:07 PM on June 29, 2006
Since all of your Gliffy documents are stored securely on our servers, there is no need to worry about backing up Gliffy documents, saving you time and hassle.Great, the source for your documents is stored on their server, and there is no way to access the source, back it up, or feed it into some other graphic renderer or database. Like say when Gliffy folds?posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 3:11 PM on June 29, 2006
This seems dangerously less than useful.
NinjaTadpole: Just don't mention that to my VC, mmmkay?
posted by boo_radley at 3:14 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 3:14 PM on June 29, 2006
What's next in the Office suite for AJAXification?
Apparently a version of Visio.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:15 PM on June 29, 2006
Apparently a version of Visio.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:15 PM on June 29, 2006
This is flash, not AJAX. I suppose it could be doing some clever XML back and forth with the server, which is very AJAX-like, but that doesn't make it AJAX.
posted by Artw at 3:33 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by Artw at 3:33 PM on June 29, 2006
Welcome to the party, Artw, the beer's gone but you fit in fine.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 3:47 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by NinjaTadpole at 3:47 PM on June 29, 2006
I've recently discovered the number one problem with all these new-fangled Web2.0 "applications"...you are forced to completely rely on a third party for continued service. There is an application I really love, been around for about 9 months now, which will remain nameless. I think it was posted on Metafilter at the time. At the start it was a neat idea, it did everything I need it to do, and I actually started using it. Not mucking about looking at the pretty colours and proof of concept, but actually relying on it to serve a purpose.
Then, shock horror, the people running the site couldn't afford the hardware to support the growing userbase. Their "real time" application slowed down to once-a-week updates, completely defeating the purpose. Their weblog hasn't had a post on it in 6 months. Their forums are full of spam. And, of course, no source code available so someone else can come along and try to take over the project. Thanks guys. You know who you are. Huzzah for Web 2.0.
posted by Jimbob at 4:02 PM on June 29, 2006
Then, shock horror, the people running the site couldn't afford the hardware to support the growing userbase. Their "real time" application slowed down to once-a-week updates, completely defeating the purpose. Their weblog hasn't had a post on it in 6 months. Their forums are full of spam. And, of course, no source code available so someone else can come along and try to take over the project. Thanks guys. You know who you are. Huzzah for Web 2.0.
posted by Jimbob at 4:02 PM on June 29, 2006
why so coy, Jimbob?
posted by boo_radley at 4:04 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 4:04 PM on June 29, 2006
Names, Jimbob, we need them to satisfy our lust for internet justice!
posted by blasdelf at 5:19 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by blasdelf at 5:19 PM on June 29, 2006
Fantastic - thanks for the link. This is much nicer than using Visio.
posted by missbossy at 5:38 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by missbossy at 5:38 PM on June 29, 2006
Ugh. Sorry. It didn't even occur to me that it might be Flash - it honestly didn't cross my mind that someone might launch a site like this and have it not be AJAX, so I didn't even right-click and check.
posted by dmd at 5:53 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by dmd at 5:53 PM on June 29, 2006
...A vain hope that the service will resume soon, and all will be back to normal...
posted by Jimbob at 6:12 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by Jimbob at 6:12 PM on June 29, 2006
The thing I really love about Web 2.0 and AJAX? How well they work with web accessibility tools.
That's sarcasm. They're not accessible.
With the Target web accessibility lawsuit warming up, I think accessibility will finally be a buzzword in 2007 or 2008. About frikkin' time. I'm tired of dealing with other people's poorly designed sites and half-baked ideas.
posted by dw at 6:24 PM on June 29, 2006
That's sarcasm. They're not accessible.
With the Target web accessibility lawsuit warming up, I think accessibility will finally be a buzzword in 2007 or 2008. About frikkin' time. I'm tired of dealing with other people's poorly designed sites and half-baked ideas.
posted by dw at 6:24 PM on June 29, 2006
I think I've got Web 2.0 figured out.
Disclaimer: self-link, my blog, nobody paid me to write this, unedited, stream-of-consciousness with digressions about high school, pop music and supermarket mergers, puns you've heard before and a cute little icon:
View at your own risk.
posted by wendell at 7:45 PM on June 29, 2006
Disclaimer: self-link, my blog, nobody paid me to write this, unedited, stream-of-consciousness with digressions about high school, pop music and supermarket mergers, puns you've heard before and a cute little icon:
View at your own risk.posted by wendell at 7:45 PM on June 29, 2006
dw: you can do accessible stuff with AJAX. It's just people don't. Same as, oh, every other web technology out there. Even Flash has accessibility features.
posted by ubernostrum at 7:52 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by ubernostrum at 7:52 PM on June 29, 2006
Yes, if you follow the approach outlined here you can maintain a high degree of accessibility. It's very unfortunate that people are developing toolkits that don't follow this approach. However if application developers commit to toolkit T, and the T developers in turn get accessibility religion, then any T-based app will get accessibility for free, so maybe there is hope.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:47 PM on June 29, 2006
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 9:47 PM on June 29, 2006
dw: you can do accessible stuff with AJAX. It's just people don't.
I know, ubernostrum. But it really bugs me that people still aren't thinking about accessibility when they code AJAX widgets. And don't get me started on Flash -- a lot of their accessibility stuff is kludged in after years of hearing people like me pound them on it.
True story: Last year I asked Jesse James Garrett at one of his workshops about the accessibility problems with AJAX, the biggest problem being that screenreaders didn't necessarily know if something on the page had changed. His response was that the screenreaders would just have to adapt.
That's a recipe for disaster -- and/or a lawsuit -- right there.
posted by dw at 10:10 PM on June 29, 2006
I know, ubernostrum. But it really bugs me that people still aren't thinking about accessibility when they code AJAX widgets. And don't get me started on Flash -- a lot of their accessibility stuff is kludged in after years of hearing people like me pound them on it.
True story: Last year I asked Jesse James Garrett at one of his workshops about the accessibility problems with AJAX, the biggest problem being that screenreaders didn't necessarily know if something on the page had changed. His response was that the screenreaders would just have to adapt.
That's a recipe for disaster -- and/or a lawsuit -- right there.
posted by dw at 10:10 PM on June 29, 2006
His response was that the screenreaders would just have to adapt.
Pfff. The solution is and always has been graceful degradation.
posted by Artw at 11:26 PM on June 29, 2006
Pfff. The solution is and always has been graceful degradation.
posted by Artw at 11:26 PM on June 29, 2006
Windows Vista will have lots of DHTML widgets on the desktop: XUL and similar technologies promise more UI components rendered by browser engines (e.g. Microsoft Gadgets)
posted by alasdair at 12:33 AM on June 30, 2006
- Down side: they're not well supported by screen readers and don't comply with accessibility guidelines for the platforms on which they appear (e.g. MSAA in Windows).
- Up side: as such technologies become more common, screen reader makers will build in support and toolkit developers will be pressured to improve accessibility and compliance with platform guidelines.
posted by alasdair at 12:33 AM on June 30, 2006
For multi-platform diagramming, OpenOffice Draw works quite nicely. Screenshots: org. chart, floor plan, flowchart, even vector graphics.
posted by rjd at 7:44 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by rjd at 7:44 AM on June 30, 2006
« Older He's got the whole world... | some pre-ordained ballet Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by brundlefly at 2:25 PM on June 29, 2006