http://plateau-entertainment.tk
A little experiment I have been messing with for some years, Aims to be the Hub to our development studio.
Noticed some major compatibility issues with I.E
This is what it looks like in FireFox:
(http://gamersplanet.tk/ss2.png)
And with 3 Sub-Windows open :)
(http://gamersplanet.tk/ss.png)
Developers might want to download the latest version of firefox, Compatibility has not yet been trested with other browsers.
The Java and quicktime prompts are a bit shit.
Ah, yea I dont get those, I use the latest version of FireFox which handles all of that.
However on other browsers you can disable java and quicktime prompts in your internet options.
I've never seen any java/Quicktime viruses out there so it's a really unneeded precaution anyway.
None of my technologies use quicktime, So its probably one of the subsites.
I get a 503 error.
What is it supposed to be?
It's a technology I came up with some years ago that allow multiple browsers in 1 window at the same time with a built in history function.
Made for the Plateau development team :)
Like every modern browser only worse?
I really don't see the point.
Nah, common browsers have multiple tabs, This is multiple windows within 1 frame meaning you don't have to change pages you can visit all of your necessary websites from one page.
It also includes a multi search tool I created so that you can search all the major search engines within 1 frame and I plan to create more online research and design tools.
It has everything one would need to develop with our company.
Quote from: GrimReapYou on Sat 14/04/2012 20:06:06
Nah, common browsers have multiple tabs, This is multiple windows within 1 frame meaning you don't have to change pages you can visit all of your necessary websites from one page.
There's an issue with that though. Websites aren't designed to be viewed this way. The lowest resolution anyone works towards is 1024x765. With multiple small windows like this I don't get what you would be developing, because it cant be websites, as the viewpoint misrepresents current design standards.
It's functionally the same as having tabs anyway, only that tabs allow you to view pages properly.
Quote from: GrimReapYou on Sat 14/04/2012 20:06:06
It has everything one would need to develop with our company.
I don't understand what this means. What do you develop? What would a hire be doing? What are the goals of this company?
We are an indie game dev company producing multiplayer QFG style games.
This technology allows you to bind websites more closely together as well.
Every website you load in a window on your website becomes part of your website :D
In the latest versions of firefox you can increase and decrease your window resolution by pressing CTRL- and CTRL+
Also you'll notice if you drag one of the windows over the edge of the screen and drop it the scrollbars size increase, allowing you to open multiple windows at bigger resolution.
Here, I made a short demonstration about how it's supposed to work.
http://youtu.be/_Jdu8nWReQw
So you've basically reinvented the <Frameset> tag?
It's similar to a frameset but it has enhanced features such as complete drag and drop capability, Minimizing/Maximizing, Internal browser "still have to add" Makes it where you can browse to your own choice of websites and is possible to open an unlimited amount.
And I'm working on adding more web based tools which are capable of editing images,text file sub systems, ftp capability etc..
This completely confounds me.
Quote from: GrimReapYou on Sat 14/04/2012 23:56:45
We are an indie game dev company producing multiplayer QFG style games.
Fair enough.
Quote from: GrimReapYou on Sat 14/04/2012 23:56:45
This technology allows you to bind websites more closely together as well.
Every website you load in a window on your website becomes part of your website :D
Why would anyone need that? It wouldn't "become part of your website" because it's another website, you know what I mean?
Quote from: GrimReapYou on Sat 14/04/2012 23:56:45
In the latest versions of firefox you can increase and decrease your window resolution by pressing CTRL- and CTRL+
Also you'll notice if you drag one of the windows over the edge of the screen and drop it the scrollbars size increase, allowing you to open multiple windows at bigger resolution.
Scrolling is in no way a step up from clicking a tab. Tabs become smaller when more pages are open for instance so you get great overview, in this case, you can only get an overview of three pages at a time.
Quote from: GrimReapYou on Sun 15/04/2012 00:22:12
It's similar to a frameset but it has enhanced features such as complete drag and drop capability, Minimizing/Maximizing, Internal browser "still have to add" Makes it where you can browse to your own choice of websites and is possible to open an unlimited amount.
And I'm working on adding more web based tools which are capable of editing images,text file sub systems, ftp capability etc..
I guess the last two functions would be a text editor and some kind of ftp client? Why would you make a less functional desktop, with a browser, inside a browser? people already have operating systems for this stuff.
I am baffled.
It will be a web based operating system,
You can use it even on electronics with no operating system, it will be seperate from your current os, meaning if you crash it wont hurt it and it's a way to assemble a suite of websites and tools into one location that could not otherwise be achieved.
You can also scroll the page infinitely meaning you can put thousands of windows in it.
Quote from: GrimReapYou on Sun 15/04/2012 06:23:03
You can use it even on electronics with no operating system
You really can't.
Quote
You really can't.
"You can use it on any browser enabled electronics"
>:(
I think what he means is that generally, browser enabled electronics will have to be running an operating system in order to function...yes?
Also, did everyone in this thread change their usernames, or am I having a brain damage kind of day?
What I mean is a fully functional operating system with DND capability, file transfering/creating, executable capabilities etc, they know what i mean. they are just trying to be rude.
Probably someones multi...
This is pointless and useless and the same functionality can be done with multiple instances of a browser and a few mouse clicks.
Besides, as has been mentioned, since most modern websites are designed for fairly high resolutions, most websites will not display optimally in this "technology and developement hub" of yours.
Besides: I do not see what this allows you to "develop"...
Also: Grim, please give us one practical example of a "browser enabled electronic device" that can run your system and does not require any kind of operating system to do so.
Quote from: Construed on Thu 19/04/2012 03:34:44
they are just trying to be rude.
I'm not trying to be rude. Everything you're attempting to accomplish is already available elsewhere and is done better. To use your website, you need a browser. If you have a browser, your website is superfluous.
I would also like to further enforce the argument that this thing is entirely useless. Having recently been able to understand the purpose of this project.
I would not say that it is a waste of your time to work on it, as I'm sure any endeavor can teach you something. All I would say is that it will never be beneficial as a user product.
It's simple.
Any device such as a smart phone, ipod, gameboy advance, OLD cell phone, anything with java and a crappy OS or incapable OS can run this.
The browser is a small part of the upcoming technologies it will offer.
It will have inline text editors, image editors, file editors, DND technology, FTP, File storage and user settings eventually and i also plan to add a function that will allow you to scale the internal browser resolution with a simple control.
Also the internal browsers will be proxy enabled.
I laughed a little, and will now vacate this thread. ;D
Lol, your just jelly you can't make your own lil mini browsers.
The funny thing is i made them like 9 years ago when you were still in diapers.
I think I have to agree with the consensus here... I'm having a hard time picturing how I would use something like this.
Let me explain (in a constructive way)!
Unless you're using a monitor with an INSANE resolution each window in your dev-hub is going to be painfully "small" and outside of what normal websites would be designed to fit in fluidly (I design almost all my sites to be fluid but I don't worry about less than 1024x768 resolutions). So you get that scroll-bar within scroll-bars look which is just useless to work within (not to mention incredibly annoying to the end-user!).
Now... if each of the mini-windows was purpose built for a specific function and the sites run in each window were purpose built to work in that lower resolution I could see this being something more useful.
A few months back I did some work for a company (can't give specifics as I signed a non-disclosure agreement) but they had a 60" LCD running at 1920x1080 that they had in the lobby of their office. I designed a full-screen interface that pulled in some aggregate data from 4 different sources and displayed it in four distinct zones on the screen. It was updated every 10-15 seconds, seamlessly integrated with no scrollbars and was quite functional (and damn pretty if I do say so myself) because each "window" was purpose built to work within the space provided!
If you could work towards that (which might not be feasible with your intentions for this hub) it might make it more effective.
I don't think the concept of what you're trying to accomplish here is bad... just the execution!
Maybe if when you focused a window it would expand to fit more of the screen and the others would shrink back (but still be clickable so they could then expand out)? That might make it more manageable!
something like this:
(http://www.twin-design.com/ags/help/construedhelp01.png)
I only see iframes. Unless you're planning a web application or game, I don't see the point.
- Alan
Quote from: Construed on Thu 19/04/2012 14:44:29
It's simple.
Any device such as a smart phone, ipod, gameboy advance, OLD cell phone, anything with java and a crappy OS or incapable OS can run this.
Come on now, this is just hyperbole. Even if you were able to connect to your website on those devices, for the most part the screen would be too small, (especially when you're carving it up into "mini-browsers") and the control methods would be totally unsuited for your goals.
Quote from: WHAM on Thu 19/04/2012 07:18:21
Besides, as has been mentioned, since most modern websites are designed for fairly high resolutions, most websites will not display optimally in this "technology and developement hub" of yours.
but you could always use the mobile version of a very modern website. But I still don't get it ;)
I tend to use a lot of key combinations like ctrl + tab, ctrl + shift + tab, alt + tab, because it's actually a lot faster way to use the computer at times. Just before I wrote that previous sentence, I pressed ctrl + f4 because I wanted to close a tab, but I had a brain fart and closed this one instead. In less than a second I got this tab back just by pressing ctrl + shift + t and was back in business. If I'm not entirely sure how to write some English word, I just press ctrl + t, type the word to the address bar (that's where the focus goes immediately), check the spelling and press ctrl + f4 to close the tab and get back here. Without moving my hands I can open the irssi window and check if anyone has said anything worthwhile, and come back, doing it a lot faster than with a mouse. This might sound extremely lazy, and using a mouse to do it wouldn't really be a problem. Only then would it irritate me if the mouse were the only option. Because I know of a better way.
I use mouse only if I have to, and most of the time I just use the wheel. I hate sites that can be scrolled horizontally, because they are just not practical.
So, I have to ask, does your site support these keyboard shortcuts?
I don't know if any of you looked at this video:
http://youtu.be/_Jdu8nWReQw
It shows that each window can be made to fit the entirety of the screen and you can add up to thousands of windows by simply scrolling with the scroll bar.
Each window also has minimize and maximize buttons and are draggable.
You can close any given window and open it at a later time and it will be exactly where you left it.
However I do agree with darth that they could be set to better automatic positioning.
So instead of using ctrl+tab and ctrl+shift+tab keyboard shortcuts in my Firefox web browser to look at different pages I CAN HORIZONTALLY SCROLL TO THEM WITH MY MOUSE!!! WOW! Discovery of the fucking century!
Oh wait, no, it's not!
Yea bud well close that tab and press ctrl shift and see if your exactly where you were before you closed it. I think not.
And what your not getting is there is room for many more functions and options here than firefox could ever dream of.
It's going to be an online OS with a desktop and I'll not have you or anyone like you cutting down my technologies before they even have a chance to grow.
You need to go to www.wikipedia.com and look up constructive criticism
You'll find underneath the definition that what your doing is Destructive criticism which should be prohibited on these forums.
Actually here's a link, cause i know your all lazy with your firefox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_criticism#Constructive_criticism
You don't appear to be capable of processing criticism, constructive or otherwise. Ever since you realised general opinion wasn't positive towards you, you've resorted to calling us "rude", "jealous" and "lazy".
You should concentrate on creating a modern and interesting website for your "company", obviously you have the skills - why waste your time creating something that nobody will want to use, that actually hinders people when they try and utilise your website? It's time to admit that this isn't the next big thing.
Quote from: Construed on Thu 19/04/2012 19:44:36
Yea bud well close that tab and press ctrl shift and see if your exactly where you were before you closed it. I think not.
You are correct, in fact, I need to press ctrl+shift+t to reopen closed tab to where I left it. Firefox kindly even stores multiple instances, so I can actually close a hundred tabs and then just reopen them. How handy!
Well, I at least got some constructive crit from the awful waffle walker and now I'm going to have lunch. So screw the whole mini browser thing, pretend they never existed!
I think everybody is getting hung up on the execution rather than the general idea.
Most contributors to this thread have dismissed it out of hand or gotten into mud-slinging so I can see how that would ruffle your feathers a bit. You've obviously put effort into this and nobody likes to see the fruits of their labours shot down. That said, a little restraint from you Grim would perhaps have kept the mood in the thread a bit friendlier. If people don't 'get it', try to convince them rather than flaming them back.
Darth gave you some really good, constructive, feedback (http://"http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=45771.msg614848#msg614848") which you seem to have ignored almost entirely. Alternative interfaces really get my juices flowing and I would have loved to have seen Darth's work in action.
The main issue people have with what you are presenting is usability. I've had a play with it and I have to agree with some of the criticism.
Screen resolution is an issueI've just tried it on my iPod touch and with only 4 windows it's difficult to see much of anything. (I also could not figure out how to move the windows around on the iPod. Touching the menu bar only highlighted it)
Supporting smaller resolutions does not have to be a show-stopper. With considerate planning, Plateau (yep, i'm naming it that) could adjust the display to suit. Darth has given you a brilliant example. You could also have certain menus and panels only show at set resolutions, just like mobile websites work (often widget areas will disappear on Wordpress sites, leaving only simple navigation for example)
Scrolling is a bit passeIt was said rather bluntly, but it's true that people hate having to scroll to get access to content. That is web development 101. There's nothing stopping you keeping scrolling, but again provide a slick UI to get around it. As well as manually scrolling along, couldn't there be a quick way to zip to a certain window. Look at Mac OS X with it's Launchpad and Mission Control for seeing all the applications available and those currently open.
The interface is not very user friendlyThe way it is at the moment, I found the menu options very confusing. I wasn't sure how to get the layout you showed in the video until I realised you had placed and enlarged those windows manually. This is one of the major usability issues and it's tedious to have to do this. I couldn't work out how to browse to any other sites other than those accessed via the menu items or by using the multi search window. I really didn't like the Search functionality at all. Why do I have the option to change the background colour here and not on on the main page itself? What is Chimpow web search? The Google search option didn't work, but the Bing and Yahoo ones did. Also the scrollbars within scrollbars look is horrible.
My thoughtsI actually do like the general idea itself.
I know that modern browsers provide similar features already, but I could see this as a web application, or rather a suite of web applications. The only requirement would be a device running a modern web browser. I know you described it as an Operating System but perhaps that was a slip of the tongue. Coding a new Operating System sounds incredibly dull to me. Great if you can do it but, unless you're creating your own flavour of Linux, the other two OSes have got things covered. That's not to say I wouldn't like to see alternatives but it would be a tonne of work before you even consider the graphics.
No, I think you meant a web application. At the moment it's more like a website with the ability to drag around iframes. There are some nice touches like the windows remembering their locations, but it basically shows content from other sites and not much more. I think you could do so much more.
For a start, if it is to be a development hub, play up the 'all your applications and sites in one place' idea. And I mean applications. Showing websites is good, but you could create some cool web applications. Look at what Google Docs provides for your basic office on the go. I've also used sites like Pixlr for online image editing. Also, look at what Aviary (http://"http://advanced.aviary.com/tools") provides.
So as a development hub for AGS I would expect the default 'applications' to include:
A word processor with screenwriting support
A graphics program with sprite animation support
A music editor
Access to the AGS forums
Access to the AGS chatrooms
You describe it as a development hub - why stop there? Why not think in terms of workspaces and have web applications tailored to different needs: office, writers, musicians, artists, students.
Some of web applications/websites you could provide for the above would include:
Word Processor (including templates for novels, screenplays, poetry)
Spreadsheets
Calendar with reminders
Access to Webmail
PDF editor/creator
Slideshow creator
Integration with sites like Amazon for product reviews and prices
University library book search
Certainly from a technical point of view, with some of these you could just pull in content from other sites rather than reinvent the wheel. But you could deliver a consistant user interface to tie them all together and easy ways to manipulate the content.
As it currently stands, I would like to see options like:
- Windows that snap into position
- One click options to rearrange the display of the windows (tile horizontally, vertically, cascade, minimise all, show all etc)
- Navigation that lets you easily see where you are and how to access hidden windows (perhaps a document tree or similar)
- An omni search or other overview tool to find a particular application
- A clearer launcher or menu bar for the available applications
- 'Workspaces' - ways to group applications for different use cases
- Style options affecting the whole user interface while also providing accessibility options
I don't think you should give up on the idea, but I do think you should make some paper prototypes to test out the usability of the website before leaping back into the code.
Don't restrict yourself to scrolling either. Experiment with different ways to present content and interact with it. What about mousing near the edge of the screen to have windows slide into view? Or collapsable nav trees or a layer hierarchy? How will it perform on mobile devices, especially those that are touch-enabled? Obviously there will be limits to what you can do in a web browser but so long as it gives the impression of more robust navigation it will work.
Also, think in terms of use cases:
Who would use this? Come up with user profiles. Is this a generic tool for everyone or a specialist tool for your studio?
If I have 20 windows open and I can't remember which is the AGS forum, how do I find it?
If I open a new application, should it appear on top of the others or slot into place somewhere?
How do I tell how many windows I have open?
How can I close/reopen all windows at once?
What about offline storage?
And so on..
If it's useful for your team, stick with it. I'd actually recommend that you develop it as a prototype like that so that you can work with it and see how it would fit your workflow. If it's successful, then show to other people and see how it could benefit them.
I think you're trying to reinvent the wheel: http://www.eyeos.org/
Well, I don't agree with the argument that the idea of a web based desktop is pointless. Think of a big company with hundreds of (slim) workstations that to need maintenance. I noticed, my credit institution did switch to a web based system recently, so there is definitely a reason for having it. But, just to repeat myself, I don't think that it would be a good idea to develop such a thing from scratch instead of just using one of the dozens available for free.
Some very nice crit I will surely use from stray and darth.
And for reinventing the wheel, I made this 9 years ago.
We might have a sweet lawsuit here :D
Not that I'm the type to sue...
Just curious is GQ still going on?
Indeed, Were almost ready to start adding QFG2 :D
Quote from: Construed on Fri 20/04/2012 02:11:20
And for reinventing the wheel, I made this 9 years ago.
And this is exactly, what it looks like, from a technical point of view. I'm sorry, but as a professional web programmer for over 7 years I clearly do not see anything that new or special here. To make it even worse, your technical approach seems to be way behind todays standards, no offense.
For example, you're using HTML 4.01, a standard which has been used around ten years ago. Then you implement a frameset, also something that is definitely out of date. The way you're utilizing JS doesn't look like you're making great use of PHP, hence I don't expect any database binding, which should be absolutely mandatory and ready to go even before you start coding a single line on the front-end.
From time to time I'm working on a web based application framework for my company. I started in 2007 and literally for years I did not even think of having a GUI. Most of the time went into the kernel. I'm sorry for contradicting here, but as you're claiming this as your own idea (which is hard to argument even if you did it 9 years ago because other software already existed then) i think it has to give proof of its quality. And as far as I can see it is not the case, at least not for me.
Like I said, I made it 9 years ago, the html 4.0 itself proves that atleast and its nothing to throw in some php/mysql at a later time, but i'm not working on it anymore.
The order of which to implement php is more of a personal preference.
I know every single line of code in every file that pertains to that website and the given technologies so really its easier for me to implement.
Well, I don't want to spoil this for you, don't get me wrong here. I really admit the work and effort you put in your project, but I just wanted to point out that in a common way you would most likely do the technical concept and strategies behind in prior, allowing you to get plain view on how the interface should look like. I always obey the form-follows-function rule here, since it is clearly more profitable to me (as well as every professional I've been speaking yet).
Ensuing from this point of view, I'd be interested in how you decided to manage the asynchronous data transmissions that are required once you're getting into iframes and common GUI stuff (such as window positioning, dimension keeping, user preferences e.g). Right now you're only using JavaScript and referred to your statement about the triviality of implementing server side scripting and databases I am wondering how exactly you planned to integrate this after the interface has been done. Will you allow user login and furthermore preferences storage? This would include a snapshot of any windows and things going on in the GUI, and as we are talking about a passive and non-persistent connection, this could get a real pain in the ass if not well designed.
Yea, I was just going to piece together various open source php scripts and edit all the database references to match my own.
But like every project I do the world hates it.
Although I expect things to be as such, perhaps I'm not meant to produce crowd pleasing entertainment products but instead AI killing machines and other warfare devices.
That's about the only other thing I have a desire to pursue.
You're all kinds of crazy Grim.
Yep, Bi-polar, explosive disorder, ADHD, the list goes on and on...
But then again most geniuses were also insane :D
Quote from: Construed on Thu 26/04/2012 10:22:37
Yep, Bi-polar, explosive disorder, ADHD, the list goes on and on...
But then again most geniuses were also insane :D
And most insane people were not geniuses, keep that in mind as well.
I pruned some of the drawn-out off topic banter.
Please remain on topic, guys. You can discuss mental illness in General Discussion if it's that important.