I'm just curious. What does that program that sold for two million dollars look like?
--- On Sun, 5/2/10, Mark Swindell <mdswind...@cruzio.com> wrote: > From: Mark Swindell <mdswind...@cruzio.com> > Subject: Re: RevStore > To: "How to use Revolution" <use-revolution@lists.runrev.com> > Date: Sunday, May 2, 2010, 5:00 PM > This is a very interesting post from > someone who was in a position to know what was going on back > then. It confirms (at least for me) what I always felt > to be the case, and why Apple ultimately let HC die on the > vine. Most coders of any language are not design > experts, nor do they, of necessity, have much going on > in terms of artistic or aesthetic sensibilities. > Amateur coders maybe even less. I recall getting shot > down for offering this opinion about the dismal appearance > of the majority of HC stacks on HC and SuperCard lists years > ago. For Apple to have its name attached to > awful-looking, poorly-written hypercard stacks was just not > a smart enterprise move, no matter how empowering the HC > platform to "the rest of us." > > The same can be true for Rev stacks, though clearly the > toolkit for nice-looking apps is much nicer. Many of > the examples in the User section might rise to the level of > perhaps good proof-of-concept demonstrations, but many, if > not most, look unprofessional. That's not a knock on > anyone, it's a subjective observation, but one that I think > would be confirmed by most disinterested 3rd parties. > (Does it then become objective?) I'm referring here, > by the way, to stand-alone apps for public consumption, not > business-related utilities, which probably account for a > great deal of the income generated off Rev programming. > > I think a great problem for Rev stacks is that they are > mostly created by one-man or woman shops. There are > not teams with project directors, artists, photoshop > experts, animators, etc. (Scott Rossi may qualify as a > team, in this scenario, but he is unique.) This is both > liberating and constraining, funny how that works. If > there were more collaboration between graphic artists, > design experts and programmers, perhaps the output would be > more aesthetically viable. But now we're dealing in > big budgets. > > Of course, this doesn't even touch on the functional aspect > of the software, which is, at the heart of things, even more > important. But while you may not be able to judge a > book by its cover, you're more apt to open one up that is > presented interestingly and professionally than one > type-written on newsprint and held together with > paper-clips. > > Mark > > > Le 2 mai 2010 à 04:13, J. Landman Gay a écrit : > > > >> But with caution. I'm in favor of keeping it out > of the spotlight until there are many more apps available, > hundreds hopefully. A few meager offerings is not > inspiring. > >> > >> And they have to be quality offerings. As someone > who had to review and release hundreds of HC stacks to the > AOL libraries, I know that 99% of what came in was pure > crap. Because HC was so accessible, everyone thought they > were a developer. Avoidance of even the suggestion of a HIG > was the norm. Radio buttons used as checkboxes or > pushbuttons ("because I like how they look,") menus missing > or out of order ("I don't need an Edit menu,") known > commercial app icons (MacWrite) used for private stack > purposes ("go cd images",) you name it. Virtually everything > about these stacks was wrong. Outsiders scoffed. > Rightfully. > >> > >> And then there were the kids. I wavered between > disgust and delight. Their stacks were invariably flip card > animations done with crude line drawings, generally on > topics humorous to nine year olds. "Kill Barney" was very > popular, we had probably a dozen of those, not counting the > rejected ones. The weapon of choice varied from guns (all > models) to swords and knives; one stick man farted old > Barney to death. We had to make a separate library for these > and tag them with editorial code words like "simple line > drawings" so that everyone else would know not to download > them. > >> > >> This lack of professionalism in HC stacks was one > of the reasons it was rarely regarded as a serious tool, and > it gave HC a bad name generally. The number of really good > stacks was pretty small. Unfair as it is, the quality of the > output often reflects on the tools used rather than the > authors. If there is ever a Rev app store, it needs to have > lots of files, all of which pass a certain standard of > professionalism. That means someone has to check and verify > every submission, which would open a whole other can of > worms. > >> > >> I confess though, in retrospect I really do wish > I'd saved a copy of "Man Gets Beheaded By a Ceiling Fan." > You had to be there. > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage > your subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution