Quote:

"Well, you have to realize that we have a job too"

The saddest part about this attitude is that such a person distances himself from the organizational goals. We all have jobs to do, but there is a REASON why we are doing them.

You're right - screen sharing would make this easy. Thanks!

Thanks Pete for the answer! Due to some lagging on the website, I didn't see your reply (or my question for that matter) until I had just posted an updated version of it on General questions. As I don't think I can erase a question, I'll leave it there (I'm not sure this forum was the best place for it anyway). Anyway: well, I wasn't really thinking an n:1 thingy. :) Rather something like this: I am working on a song in some music software. I could really need some help on volume levels and the like. Instead of copying the entire file plus included audio files somewhere, having someone else downloading it, and then trying to find out what the other person has done to it, it would be much easier if I could just find a list of (visible) online users within the software, send a PM to one of them and ask him/er for advice. He/she would then just click a button in the software to download my files, and then being able to make changes to them. That's the idea anyway. :) Thanks again, Petter

Hi, I am using a multimedia desktop application (PC and Mac) from a small developer, and am thinking of how this application could benefit from online collaboration. What I have in mind is this: User 1 is working on a project on his/her computer. User 1 runs into a problem and invites User 2 via a menu in the software. User 2 is granted access to User 1's project and it is somehow copied to User 2's computer (peer to peer). They can then share the files, probably with some kind of version control, and perhaps using an included chat room or similar. Note that the file format doesn't matter - this should just be a way to have several people looking at and working on the same files (basically more convenient than sending them over ftp or so). There are two uses for this feature: a) to help out or improve (say, helping with filter settings that enhance an image/audio file/movie, and b) to enable online collaboration between several users, for example students running the same software (like Google Apps, but not necessarily in real-time). So, is there any software that would take care of this and serve other software with a suitable API? I am sure that the developer I have in mind could come up with something similar, but I want to have a third party solution so that this will get quicker to implement and not take any direct effort from the main software development. (A parallel cold be drawn to software used for creating license keys: most developers could come up with something similar, but it's faster to use a third party solution.) I have tried to find such solutions online, but “online collaboration” and similar searches give the wrong kind of search replies. Thanks for any suggestions! Petter

My gosh! I have been "dismembered" (I guess that's the wrong word for it :) ) twice from SO because my questions were too vague. I agree that they might have been not entirely clear, but then again: Why on Earth would I post questions if I knew exactly what I was looking for? Most of such times, it would be my obligation to first look for answers using Google searches or so. Working as a lecturer in programming (thus probably not asking really off-topic questions) I felt that there must be nicer forums, and that's why I joined CodeProject a few years ago. So: thanks for your kindness, whoever who is reading this. :) A few weeks ago I re-joined SO as I wanted to get in touch with a poster and send him a message. Then I realized that one cannot send private messages on SO. ...so I ended up looking him up on Google and sent an email to his workplace instead. (Of course, many people have positive experiences from SO - these are just my own impressions.)

The traditional way of solving this is using a master/detail scenario: 1. Drag a gridview to the site, and bind it to the database's table. Rightclick it and choose to have a Select field shown. 2. Drag a details view to the page, and bind it as well. In its bidning window, you can graphically set a WHERE statement. Set your statement to Control, then chose your gridview as the control. Also click the advanced button to enable DELETE, UPDATE, and INSERT. If done right, this means that when a user clicks the Select button for a particular row in the gridview, this row's data will appear in the detailsview. Then it can be updated or deleted, and more data can be inserted from the detailsview. I don't know how much you know about binding to a database, but be sure you stay out of SQL injection trouble. Note that searching for master/detail, gridview and detailsview you should be able to fond a lot of info on how to do this. Good luck!

What the others said. :) However, you should consider your own situation. WebForms still works fine. MVC is "cooler" but the transition from WebForms to MVC.NET is not easy. If you used the AJAX Toolbox (or whatever it was called): it's been abandoned. Instead, MS chose to support the community behind jQuery. So if you're just updating an existing site, perhaps you would get by simply making things nicer with jQuery. If on the other hand you would like to be more up to date, you should probably look into MVC.NET (and perhas some of the other things mentioned in these replies). The problem with web development is that things move so fast that as soon as you get the hang of a language or framework, it's almost obsolete, especially if you're not working with web development on a daily basis.

Nathan Minier wrote:

if a fresh face is not intimidated by the depth and breadth of knowledge needed to be a real developer, then they should do it and do it right.

Hi, No need to apologise: please note that I never advised the OP to use WebForms - it's a matter of how far down the programming path one wants to go. By the way, ASP.NET WebForms was created to differentiate between presentation (HTML) and logic (ASP.NET) as opposed to blurring them together (like in ASP and PHP), which it still does well. Quite many member portals (for example) have been written using WebForms, at a time when PHP was a competitor. I agree that WebForms is less adequate for a Web 2.0 scenario, but it's much easier to learn than MVC.NET for example, so once again, I think we are in agreement. Skipping out on SQL? No, I dont think so... :) So sure, if one wants to dig deep into coding, then he or she should by all means explore ASP.NET MVC, some advanced PHP, and many several newer and perhaps more exciting languages. It all depends on what one tries to achieve, and where in the path from design to code one wants to place oneself. As you said, the route you are suggesting "isn't for everyone", and Scott Gunthrie himself said some time ago that WebForms and MVC.NET are for different people but both have their merits (or something along those lines). I for one live happily with both approaches.

Nathan Minier wrote:

Web developers make web applications. Web designers make web sites. There is a fairly fundamental difference: developers make the web work and designers make it pretty.

This is well put, but perhaps not the whole story. 1. For a web site to work well, you would also need someone writing great content, have an understanding of information architecture, web usability, and more. I sometimes teach the Web Editor program at our university, which links text, image handling, usability/accessibility, structuring the site, and also some coding. 2. Even if you are more into the backend of a web site/web application, the level of expertise you would need varies. For example, ASP.NET WebForms is much easier (if you're not good at OO practices) and more similar to a traditional HTML web site than ASP.NET MVC. To develop web sites, I usually say you need five skills: 1. HTML 2. CSS 3. Database logic (traditionally SQL Server or MySQL) 4. Server code (ASP.NET, PHP) 5. Javascript Of these five, Javascript could perhaps be omitted, depending on the website's needs, but you can't live without the other four. If you keep things simple you will find that web development is much easier than most other programming. It's also more rewarding, as you get results very quickly, and people from all over the world can watch your work. Thus, if you're new or relatively new to programming, then web development is a great way to expand on your knowledge. Good luck! Petter

Nathan Minier wrote:

Web developers make web applications. Web designers make web sites. There is a fairly fundamental difference: developers make the web work and designers make it pretty.

This is well put, but perhaps not the whole story. 1. For a web site to work well, you would also need someone writing great content, have an understanding of information architecture, web usability, and more. I sometimes teach the Web Editor program at our university, which links text, image handling, usability/accessibility, structuring the site, and also some coding. 2. Even if you are more into the backend of a web site/web application, the level of expertise you would need varies. For example, ASP.NET WebForms is much easier (if you're not good at OO practices) and more similar to a traditional HTML web site than ASP.NET MVC. To develop web sites, I usually say you need five skills: 1. HTML 2. CSS 3. Database logic (traditionally SQL Server or MySQL) 4. Server code (ASP.NET, PHP) 5. Javascript Of these five, Javascript could perhaps be omitted, depending on the website's needs, but you can't live without the other four. If you keep things simple you will find that web development is much easier than most other programming. It's also more rewarding, as you get results very quickly, and people from all over the world can watch your work. Thus, if you're new or relatively new to programming, then web development is a great way to expand on your knowledge. Good luck! Petter

Atle Mo wrote:

we felt it was natural for us to counter this. We're the square peg (in a round hole) of browsers, literally.

Yes, you're actually very cool. Having gone upstream (or up-fjord?) for twenty years (couting Opera as well) is worth respect.

WynterDragon wrote:

Because the idea of using a single pixel height logo really didn't take off?

That might be the case. Don't forget this site though. :)

>>> "So, the people at [Company X] put their logo in a circle." "And?" "Well, it represent the WORLD, as in this browser can access the world." "Copy them, but with our initial. NEXT." >>> I think you will have great success in business. :)

Yes, that's how I recall it too. So perhaps it was IE who started the round thing. I think it's really a bit strange as the logos were very small back then (16*16 pixels I think). Round is really not optimal then. Actually I just saw that the N was pictured on top of a circle (the world?), so it's them too!

"The reason the logos were often round is that they fit better through the round wires." Yeah, had forgotten about the dial-up modems back in the days... :)

Aha! :) Maybe it's actually "V for victory, and they are influenced by the (television series V). Back to cyberspace then. :)

Well there we go! Actually, Vivaldi is the successor to Opera. I bet that doesn't count as having a round logo anyway. :) Here's an image of the proud Vivaldi team!

Well, there are many things one could do besides illustrating the world. After all, the Internet is referred to as Cyberspace. You're right about the O of course (apart from that they could have used something else than their initial). BTW, I'm working on a framework for developing UWP 2D games for novice programmers, using XAML and C#, backed up by Farseer Physics and Physics Helper. I just created a space shooter game with very little effort using this framework. Now I feel inspired to make a Browser Wars version of it, having all these round logos shooting at each other. :) (I plan to upload the framework as a project on this site sometime during fall.)

Well, the heading maybe says it all. Why are all the browser logos round and not square? This fact became very apparent to me when they were (accidentally?) posed as the olympic games rings[^]. Any ideas? Considering that most web sites are drawn as frames and that the rest of at least Microsoft's application logos are square-ish, it's rather strange to me.

:) Then I suggest you take a look at this web site (or his project page on CodeProject): www.andybeaulieu.com/ Andy has created something called "Physics Helper", giving a GUI for the physics engine. Very, very cool! I was actually going to use Physics Helper, Blend, and Silverlight, but as Silverlight is ot supported anymore I neededto investigate anew - hence this thread. petter :)