brunobergher::blog

Google finally joined the OpenID party.

Well, now the standard is going somewhere.

“…when everything (background, structure, content) is emphasized, nothing is emphasized; the design will often be noisy, cluttered, and informationally flat.

—Edward Tufte, Visual Explanations

Why it’s so hard sometimes getting this through to clients? It’s for their own good, you know?

I wonder why Adobe (and the numerous evangelists doing a great job promoting and explaining Flex) insists on marketing Flex and Flash as opposed, or at least very, very different things?

Flex is a framework. A bunch of very useful code that streamlines and support the [earlier] exasperating process of writing applications in ActionScript. But it’s written AS3, produces SWFs, runs in the Adobe Flash Player. When you’re writing a Flex preloader you even find out that the whole of Flex code is put in the Frame 2 of a Flash timeline, with the preloader in frame 1. There’s nothing you can do with Flex that you couldn’t eventually do with straight AS3, even in the Flash IDE timeline.

I do see that people from a AS1/2 background might have some initial difficulty understanding the difference (I know I did), but why try to make it so different? OK, Flex is totally targeted toward applications, but many sites nowadays can’t be discerned in many ways from very visual applications.

No one will try to prove or at least say that CakePHP is different from PHP. and most certainly there will be no one trying to show how Rails is opposed in anyway to Ruby. It’s like comparing apples and apple juice!

Ted Patrick is writing on this, and that’s what got me thinking.

Just wanted to say it. I told I’d blog anything from now on.