Hi Kevin, Sincerely, thank you for taking the time to provide feedback. As an interesting side note touching on your first point. From the review of my web analytics no one has actually tried Meta yet with all 34 visitors being non IE users (Safari and FF were equally popular with Chrome a distant third). I guess it validates your first point regarding this forum anyway. It would be interesting to know the breakdown from Elias.
Thanks again. Ian On Dec 15, 7:13 am, Kevin Littlejohn <kevin.littlej...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm gonna be the voice of gloom, I'm afraid ;) > > Speaking as an OSS techo, I have a few comments, and they're all > rolled into roughly the same point: There's a lot of competition in > the space you appear to be positioned in, and you're going to struggle > to get mindshare. > > Firstly, IE only sucks. Yes, IE is the lion's share of the market, > but that's falling - and if we're contracted to build a website, we're > required to build for IE + Firefox + Safari on most contracts these > days. I'm sure that's not across the board - but certainly for govt > contracts and the larger corps we've dealt with. > > Secondly, it appears to require the client to download something > before they can view your content. That's not going to fly - many > users will simply wander off, and most web publishers will not be > happy with that. > > Thirdly, getting a critical mass using this tech will be hard - I need > to know as a developer that either you're a large enough company > you're going to be around to support it basically forever, or there's > a sufficient OSS community behind it to keep it rolling should you > lose interest. That's a chicken-or-egg problem, but it's there > nonetheless. > > Fourthly, I'm not entirely clear on the benefits of the plugin. Does > this actually solve a problem for you, if so, what problem? The web > pages are a bit hard to parse on that front - perhaps a story about > how you had a particular problem and how this solves it would help me > understand why I should use it? > > As far as I can make out - and correct me if I'm wrong - this is a > delivery system for scripts via html. I'm not entirely sure that's a > legitimate problem - I mean, yes if you want to build sites that use > something other than javascript or flash client-side, but not many > people do. If you could get this into the major browsers, so there > was nothing to download, then maybe, but otherwise... > > The other problem is that those meta images return plain xml - which > my browser, at least (Safari), does it's best to display (with no > applicable dtd/xsl, it doesn't know what to do, but it tries ;). That > means those links are not friendly to people that don't already know > what to do - in essence, I'd have to build a web page that says > "please click on this, install what it serves, then click on my > content to see it" - then trust that the end users would actually > follow instructions. Meh. > > Actually, just looking at your support page, it appears there's a > similar process for end users once they have the app installed. > Believe it or not, that's too complex for most people to follow - > people will hit the run link and wonder why nothing's happened. > They'll hit the package link then run and wonder why nothing's > happened. They'll complain about having an extra toolbar. They'll > get confused and frustrated, and get rid of it. I suggest at least > changing your XML package files to something else, so the browser can > auto-run the handler. > > It doesn't do anything for me - but I may not have stumbled across the > particular problem it solves, thus don't see the need. We build (or > try to build) accessibility friendly, xhtml-clean, cross-browser with > as little scripting as possible, so I'm not exactly your target > market ;) > > On the up-side, it's one of the better presented sites I've seen for a > new tech - I managed to find I think everything I needed to know about > the app fairly quickly ;) > > KJL > > On 15/12/2008, at 00:25 , Ian Hart wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > I have recently released the next beta version of software that I have > > been developing. It’s essentially been a private project, which has > > taken me over 10 years to get to the point where the concepts are now > > a reality. It’s time to fully take the wrapping off it. The project > > is called Appxweb Meta (www.appxweb.com). I believe it has the > > potential to transform the web. There is also the potential I am > > seriously deluded. (The fellow who came up with those Xmas > > decorations to turn your car into a reindeer probably thought that was > > a cracker idea too.) With that in mind I would like to ask for some > > objective feedback from the SB community to see if I should take this > > further, in what direction and also ask for some help in carrying out > > some further proof of concept tests. Details below and thanks for > > your help. > > > Kind Regards > > > Ian > > > What is Appxweb Meta? > > I describe Appxweb Meta as an extension runtime for Internet Explorer. > > It allows web developers using script and mark up (the declaration) to > > easily create and deploy browser extensions. These Meta Extensions are > > delivered as a service, on demand. What makes Appxweb Meta different > > is its design architecture which amongst other things combines service > > oriented and aspect oriented concepts. > > > So What? > > The value of Meta Extensions is their ability to dynamically merge, > > mix, mesh and integrate data, functionality and user interface > > elements as part of a web experience. This enables solutions to a > > range of problems for instance data portability. > > > Build It and They Will Come > > I have started creating proof of concept demo Meta Extensions (http:// > >www.appxweb.com/demos/demos.html) to showcase different uses of the > > technology. Please try these an let me know what you think. Good, > > bad, waste of space? > > > I need some help > > I am wanting to show that Meta Extensions are non sticky. That is I > > want show that you are able to break an extension’s declaration into > > any number of parts (order and sequence does not matter) and > > distribute them across the web. When it comes time to create the > > extension the Appxweb Meta runtime gathers all these parts together > > and generates the extension on demand. What this means is you can > > collaborate in creating extensions eg one party provides some of the > > data, another some of functionality, another the some user interface > > and so on and so forth. Parts used by one extension could be used by > > other extensions. > > > To demonstrate this distributed ability I need volunteers to host some > > of the declaration parts. I want to do this for the Web Lock demo > > Meta Extension. Here is the consolidated declaration of this > > extension. http://www.appxweb.com/demos/web_lock.zip > > > Here is how I want to distribute it > > http://www.appxweb.com/demos/web_lock2.zip > > . > > Note the package file would need to updated with the new URLs of where > > the various parts are being hosted. If you interested please let me > > know.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To post to this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
