I understand your point, but in my experience they've done a decent job with the Mid Tier working according to generic standards rather than picking IE6 and refusing to work on anything else like some other applications have done. Unfortunately, RKM seems to be one of those applications. I primarily use Firefox because I really like having a built in spell check, but RKM has a lot of issues with it.
Generally though, companies standardize on java versions, browser versions, etc. As companies continue to move towards platforms such as VM and mobile phones for their employees, I think we will see the standardization locked in even more. I know in my company, standardizing on a Java platform makes things a lot easier from a support standpoint, so it was well worth the money to spend time testing it against all of our Java-based IT apps before we implement it, and we fix, work with the vendor, or drop any application that would require some ancient JRE. In my experience the tradeoffs are outweighed by the decrease in time I spend supporting WUT issues. The Remedy power users at my company who wrote macros and did all sorts of amazing things have retired or moved on. The client-related issues have decreased tremendously by standardizing my user base on the web rather than the WUT. It's been a big help for my group, and now the vast majority of the questions and issues we help users on are related to the actual applications, not the tool that delivers them to us. Anyway, these are my thoughts as someone that used to hate Remedy Web and the first versions of the Mid Tier. Thanks, Shawn Pierson -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Juan Ingles Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:10 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: AR User Tool Deprecated? TANSTAAFL! - There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch for those of you that haven't read Heinlein... Yea, we might not have to ask "What version of the user tool do you use" or "Have you tried deleting ARF/ARV files?" But those questions are quickly replaced by "What browser (and what version) are you using" and "Have you tried deleting your cookies?" And then add to those: What are your browser security settings? Do you have popups blocked? Are you using "No Script?" etc..... Standardization or simplification at the End User Level usually comes at the cost of complexity in the underlying infrastructure. And the taller the stack gets, the more pieces there are to break or be mis-configured. ( How may of us have had to resort to the 7.1 Admin tool reg-edit hack because you had a server that was unresponsive to the User Tool? ) Note that I'm not necessarily saying that "It's a BAD (tm) thing," I'm just saying that it does NOT make things simpler or lower the total cost and to use that as a primary selling point is a fallacy, IMHO. Juan Ingles On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Pierson, Shawn <shawn.pier...@sug.com> wrote: > I've been thinking about this sort of thing lately, and I think that it's not > necessarily a bad move from a corporate perspective, despite my personal > desire to continue using WUT. > > 1) Web services are the present and future of integrations, at least in the > near term. Older APIs and such should be replaced soon, if they haven't been > already. I'm not saying that this blanket statement will be entirely > possible right now, as there are many applications that integrate with Remedy > through APIs and such, but in my opinion it's not good practice to do > integrations on the user interface anymore if you can help it. > > 2) If you look at the overall trends in computing, it seems like every > manager now operates primarily from a Blackberry/iPhone/Android device. That > trend is creeping down to the rank and file employees of a company, and it's > easier to support the lowest common denominator in computing, which in this > case will be the handheld devices. As a result, you're better off developing > a web-based app that runs on an iPhone as well as IE in Windows. Also, > management doesn't look at the user experience as the top priority, but > rather how to use the tool to make or save money for the company. A standard > UI is going to save money over variously installed versions of WUT that > require admin rights that are more expensive to support. Do you ever have to > tell users, "Hey delete your *.ARF and *.ARV files and try again"? There is > a cost associated with that which isn't present on the web. > > Overall, IT seems to be trending away from executables and towards > remotely-based applications much like the days of terminals and mainframes. > Sure, you can run one copy of WUT from a Citrix server, but is that really > ideal? I think it's more headache than it's worth. > > Thanks, > > Shawn Pierson > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Angus Comber > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:19 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: AR User Tool Deprecated? > > I believe this is true and think BMC are making a big mistake for the > following reasons: > > 1. The thick client has a client based API, using COM, which is used by many > third party products, including our own, and this capability is really > useful for integration with other products. All this functionality will be > lost. > > 2. It is administrators, not users, pushing for web front ends, simply for > deployment reasons. Users prefer responsive, rich functionality > applications. Anyone who has used Siebel will know what I mean. > > I have no problem with a web alternative but if they go for thin client > only, then that is not good news from my perspective. > > Angus > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NNMN" <naveen...@gmail.com> > Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general > To: <arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:40 AM > Subject: AR User Tool Deprecated? > > >> Hi ARSers, >> >> I have been hearing that AR User tool is getting deprected. I have few >> questions on this. >> >> - Is it really going to get deprecated? Is ARS8.0 going to have a thick >> client? >> - If it is just through mid-tier then will the DDE, OLE, macros etc be >> removed from active link actions. >> - Is mid-tier expected to come up with more capabilities so as to tackle >> client dependencies? >> >> Not sure who can answer this. But would also be cool to get your own views >> on this. >> >> Cheers, >> Naveen >> >> ----- >> With Warm Regards, >> Naveen >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://old.nabble.com/AR-User-Tool-Deprecated--tp28979740p28979740.html >> Sent from the ARS (Action Request System) mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> _______________________________________________________________________________ >> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org >> attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > Private and confidential as detailed here: > http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail . If you cannot access the > link, please e-mail sender. > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" Private and confidential as detailed here: http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail . If you cannot access the link, please e-mail sender. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
