Re: [Anygui-devel] Re: Re: Have you looked at UIML?
Brought to you by:
mlh
From: Michael M. <mc...@ni...> - 2002-08-30 17:11:25
|
On Friday 30 August 2002 12:24 pm, Gerald Bauer wrote: > > > > Have anyone looked > > > > at UIML? > > > > > > Yes, I looked at UIML. It's a dead end and a > > > > piece > > > > > of junk. > > > > That only time can tell. But definitely not a piece > > of junk! > > How longer do you need to wait. UIML is more than > three years old and isn't going anywhere. No book are > forthcoming. No engines and so on. It's pratically > dead already. Sometimes it takes awhile for a technology to catch on. For instance, I've been using Python since 1994. I've taken alot of abuse from Java advocates for using an abscure language. Time is on my side, but it can be painful waiting. I'm not arguing that UIML is the right answer, but I do think it should be examined and reflected upon when making design decisions. It's like looking at the OSI model when talking about the IP stack. The work on the theory of the OSI stack was great, it was just too costly to implement all the options. IP, by constrast, came with working code. The failure of implementations of OSI to materialize did not invalidate the model. It turned out that the much slimmer IP specification was simply cheaper and easier to implement and use. The same model, but with a lower cost of ownership. (Also, the IP business approach of making source code freely available stomped the OSI business model.) > > while UIML is built on a solid > > basis of HCI research > > with a sound specification. > > Have you used UIML for any of your applications? Can > you show me some links of live UIML apps? Or is this > just a philosphical argument with no foundation in the > real-world? Let's not use number of apps implemented in the technology as a qualification for consideration. We'll all be using VB if that was the critical benchmark. > > describe a device independent user interface with > > regards to all of > > its aspects. > > That's the point. UIML is so abstract, you can use > it for anything and claim that it's superior. All you > have to do, is fill in the details. By contrast the XUL definition could be called a hack by the Mozilla developers and that the hack is now being stretched to do things it wasn't originally designed to do. (This may not be the case, but if we are going to dis the other side we should be fair and do it in both directions.) I think XUL is great. I also think UIML has been well reasoned. Working code always trumps talk, but is XUL feature complete and does it scale? The Mozilla browser is certainly a good existance proof, so it probably does. However, is there a reason for not looking at the two of them? Let the details speak for themselves, but look at the details, don't argue about vague notions to proclaim one better than the other. > > The time of UIML may have not yet come, however, it > > just won't hurt > > reading the UIML specification to get a faint idea > > of what else waits > > there to be considered... > > Again UIML is years old and a case-study of how > *not* to do it. Just using XML isn't enough. The comparison between UIML and XUL is also a comparison between what happens when you have a well funded project with lots of highly skilled developers and when you have a minimally funded research project at a University with only semester long blocks of student time to work on the project. Sometime the available resources are more important to the outcome than the quality of the design. BTW, I'm neutal on this issue, both have merit. I'd just like to see a more civil tone in the discussion. There's no reason to be harsh and jump down someone's throat for suggesting an alternative that is on target, albeit, a bit under-developed. |