On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Scott Lawrence<[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 15:26 -0400, Damian Krzeminski wrote: > >> Without getting into too much details (check wiki if you are interested) >> looks like writing directly in javascript would probably give us a nicer UI >> initially but we would take some time to develop tools and framework to get >> productive and handle the pesky little issues like localization or unit >> testing. Using GWT would probably give us quick results but a more >> pedestrian look and feel. We would need to spend some effort to get to the >> level of blink offered out-of-the-box by modern javascript libraries. > > IMO - 'blink' is much less important that a clean look (I think most > Google UIs are outstanding) and responsiveness. > > I also think that excellent support for small screen browsers (iPhone, > Blackberry, other smartphones) is essential - anyone who has one is > going to want to use it for user portal functions like manipulating > forwarding and voicemail at least. > > Another criteria to think about - how likely are you to be able to > recruit developers (either open source or employee) who already know how > to be productive in the chosen technology, and if you can't how long > does it take?
I don't want to be repetitive here, but GWT fit in those lines. BTW, the guidelines Scott gave could be added to wiki's criteria section. > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev > sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ > -- Arnaldo M Pereira _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
