RE: [WEB400] Re: Modify the IE Browser

["Eyers, Daniel" <daniel.eyers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It occurs to me that the question of whether or not to modify the browser is 
based on your view of client.

Nathan (and I think Joe) sees the browser as well, not exactly thick, but 
certainly fatter than others.  They seem to
see a browser as the front end to the application.  In this case, presentation 
(UI) is as important as content.

I (and I think, Hans as well) tend to see it as a *very* thin client.  It is 
only a window to the application, the app
running on the server (WAS or otherwise).  Here, the goal is minimal 
obtrusiveness.

In the *very* thin model, it is unthinkable to change anything.  In this case, 
you design to the lowest common
denominator (the generic browser) and make the server do all the work.  In the 
semi-thick mode, you temporarily control
the browser to use it's built-in functionality to the apps advantage and 
provide a potentially more robust UI (not just
generic) and use the client PC to do some (at least) of the work.  I think Java 
applets would do ok in this model,
although I agree with Joe and Aaron: Applets are good for one or two functions, 
not so good at huge applications.

The real issue is one of customer acceptance.  Do the users *want* the 
additional functionality a semi-thick client can
provide, or would they rather all applications behave at the lowest common 
denominator?  Obviously, there are different
segments of customers.  Intranet customers may be more apt to allow semi-thick 
client than internet ones.  Applying the
"WWAD" (What would Amazon Do) consideration, very thin clients are the norm for 
Internet (maybe extranet?).  I think
some users would get confused if you changed their expected behavior by 
extending application functionality to the
browser.  F1, for example, is browser help, not application help.  And how many 
people even "think" of hitting F1 after
they have mastered the browser?  Or "want" their favorites to change by 
application?  I agree with Hans here, changing
the behavior of the browser is non-trivial to the user.  They have a stake in 
the transaction.  I wonder how many users
with limited knowledge would assume that a change in browser behavior is a 
virus infection?

In the end, an application must be tailored to address the needs of the users 
(gee, haven't heard *that* one before).
However, I think the tailoring must be kept at a minimum to avoid confusion.  
Constancy of UI is an important goal for
all applications, and especially Internet ones. 

What do you guys think???

thanks

dan