4 ms·

I'm guessing you don't actually use flow day to day. I'm also guessing that if they made an HTML version you probably wouldn't use that either; you probably hav

I'm guessing you don't actually use flow day to day. I'm also guessing that if they made an HTML version you probably wouldn't use that either; you probably have your own way of managing your projects and todos. I'm also guessing you're using this post as a sounding board for your gripes with single page javascript applications. Are any of these guesses accurate?

leptons 15y ago
My guess is you sound like a troll.
NeutronBoy 15y ago
Just because he doesn't use it any more doesn't mean the feedback is any less valuable. It's great feedback. It points out specific problems and solutions. Ways that, from his point of view, the UI could be improved.
- marknutter 15y ago
  What I'm questioning is whether or not he actually ever attempted to use it as his main project management solution in the first place, and instead gave a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that it was a single-page javascript application. Someone who's asking for a plain HTML version of a rich desktop style application probably wasn't going to use it in the first place. I'm open to eating crow, though.
  - ricardobeat 15y ago
    It's pretty clear from his comment that he used it. > Someone who's asking for a plain HTML version of a rich desktop style application probably wasn't going to use it in the first place. That's a very unfortunate comment. In the end the technology is what matters the least in his feedback - odds are if you make the RIA responsive enough, use smart caching, sensible navigation, respect default behaviors, etc, nobody will ask for a "plain HTML" version. It's about the experience and usability.
jasonkester 14y ago
No. I used Flow on a daily basis for the better part of two months, to coordinate a team of six on a major product feature we were developing. The things I mention above are chronic issues I ran into every day, not superficial things I saw once before dismissing the thing. They're also 100% fixable. If you're going to do this sort of "empty container" app, it's worth modifying your approach a tiny bit and instead going with "filled container". That is, sending the actual page content over the wire, then doing all your smartness and auto-updating behind the scenes where the user can't see it. You get all the benefits that the browser gives you for free such as cache management and back-button support, and you can also build in all your rich UX just like before. And of course, if you're going to rip out a 20-year-tested native control like the scrollbar, it's up to you to make absolutely certain that the thing you replace it with is better. Theirs is demonstrably worse in pretty much every way a scrollbar can be worse, and actually fails the simple case of "scroll the document", as it tends to lose its position. The fix for this is as obvious as it is easy to implement: use the native scrollbar to scroll your list. If they do those things, they may win me and my team back.
- nhangen 14y ago
  You sound like the type of customer I'd be thrilled to lose.
- marknutter 14y ago
  Boy was I wrong. Thanks for the clarification, these are great critiques.

leptons 15y ago

My guess is you sound like a troll.

NeutronBoy 15y ago

Just because he doesn't use it any more doesn't mean the feedback is any less valuable. It's great feedback. It points out specific problems and solutions. Ways that, from his point of view, the UI could be improved.

marknutter 15y ago
What I'm questioning is whether or not he actually ever attempted to use it as his main project management solution in the first place, and instead gave a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that it was a single-page javascript application. Someone who's asking for a plain HTML version of a rich desktop style application probably wasn't going to use it in the first place. I'm open to eating crow, though.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  It's pretty clear from his comment that he used it. > Someone who's asking for a plain HTML version of a rich desktop style application probably wasn't going to use it in the first place. That's a very unfortunate comment. In the end the technology is what matters the least in his feedback - odds are if you make the RIA responsive enough, use smart caching, sensible navigation, respect default behaviors, etc, nobody will ask for a "plain HTML" version. It's about the experience and usability.

jasonkester 14y ago

No. I used Flow on a daily basis for the better part of two months, to coordinate a team of six on a major product feature we were developing. The things I mention above are chronic issues I ran into every day, not superficial things I saw once before dismissing the thing. They're also 100% fixable. If you're going to do this sort of "empty container" app, it's worth modifying your approach a tiny bit and instead going with "filled container". That is, sending the actual page content over the wire, then doing all your smartness and auto-updating behind the scenes where the user can't see it. You get all the benefits that the browser gives you for free such as cache management and back-button support, and you can also build in all your rich UX just like before. And of course, if you're going to rip out a 20-year-tested native control like the scrollbar, it's up to you to make absolutely certain that the thing you replace it with is better. Theirs is demonstrably worse in pretty much every way a scrollbar can be worse, and actually fails the simple case of "scroll the document", as it tends to lose its position. The fix for this is as obvious as it is easy to implement: use the native scrollbar to scroll your list. If they do those things, they may win me and my team back.

nhangen 14y ago
You sound like the type of customer I'd be thrilled to lose.
marknutter 14y ago
Boy was I wrong. Thanks for the clarification, these are great critiques.