From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (67-5-177-213.ptld.qwest.net [67.5.177.213]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC8EA7925C; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:52:01 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Brannon To: Chuck Hallenbeck Cc: Edbrowse Development References: <20151217134608.GA4216@acer.attlocal.net> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:52:06 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20151217134608.GA4216@acer.attlocal.net> (Chuck Hallenbeck's message of "Thu, 17 Dec 2015 08:46:08 -0500") Message-ID: <87vb7xi0vd.fsf@mushroom.localdomain> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Edbrowse-dev] Non-technical rant X-BeenThere: edbrowse-dev@lists.the-brannons.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Edbrowse Development List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:52:02 -0000 Chuck Hallenbeck writes: > But I have become discouraged recently because the > moving target we are pursuing seems to be pulling away from us. I would argue that it has been doing that since about 1995 or so. > Last summer I decided to abandon the linux world and emigrate to an > imac system, where there seemed to be a growing community of happy blind > users. Deedra has one too. I made my peace with it, and I use it for browsing when I have to access fancy sites. But part of me would sure be glad if I could check my bank balance with edbrowse. Perhaps that day is closer than I think? > For example, Amazon now works extremely well, > but I can no longer access the third party email service I have used > for the past fifteen years, due to a change in their user interface. You've just pointed out one of my major problems with web applications. The user interface is subject to change at any moment, at the sole whim of the developer, with no possibility to downgrade to a version that you find more acceptable. In effect, the developer is dictating to you, and you have no control. The user interface is tightly coupled to the communication. Compare this to a non-web-based network service that uses an open protocol. Take Usenet for example. If I want to use Usenet, I can choose among any number of news readers. If none of the options suits me for some reason, I can choose to write my own. Compare this to a hypothetical web forum, www.hamradioforum.com. If I wish to participate in it, I *must* use their user interface. I cannot swap it for one that appeals to me. If their site is edbrowse-friendly, I can at least make the experience a bit less painless. If I'm really lucky, hamradioforum.com offers a web API using JSON and HTTP. Odds are good that even if they do, it is only accessible to people who have registered for a developer key. However, even if that web API is open for my use, if I write a client against it, it will most likely only work with hamradioforum.com. On the other hand, my Usenet client works with limitless newsgroups on countless news servers. I'd argue that one of the fundamental problems of the so-called "modern" web is the tight coupling between user interface and data transfer. There's also a severe impedence mismatch, as we are forcing a document delivery system designed in the early 1990s to serve as some sort of highly interactive application platform. It is piles of hacks upon piles of hacks, rather than sound engineering. On the other hand, it is extremely popular, and boat loads of people are making mega bucks doing it. So onward we go. -- Chris