Ben Langhinrichs

Photograph of Ben Langhinrichs

E-mail address - Ben Langhinrichs






December, 2008
SMTWTFS
 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31

Search the weblog





























Genii Weblog


Civility in critiquing the ideas of others is no vice. Rudeness in defending your own ideas is no virtue.


Tue 16 Dec 2008, 02:04 PM
In Part 1, I showed how IBM's rendering of MIME messages could lead your customers to think you were still running Notes R5, and how iFidelity, in beta now, would allow you to send out more professional looking email, rendered as it is in Notes.  In Part 2, I showed how content rendered by Domino on the web was likely to make prospective customers think twice, or more, before buying Lotus Notes, and how CoexEdit could dramatically improve that default rendering.  In this part, I will show how rendering is made even worse when edited on the web, and how CoexEdit can improve that process as well.

In order to avoid any suggestion that I am cherry picking data, I will use a well known database, my Lotusphere 2009 Sessions DB, and do a simple Edit - Copy As - Table and make no changes, but simply copy into a rich text field.  I will use a sample database I have for editing.  This db has two identical rich text fields into which I will post the data.  The top rich text field is set to render using Domino and edit as Best Fit for OS under Domino 8.0.1 and the new Use JavaScript Control under 8.5 beta.  The bottom rich text field is set to render using CoexEdit and edit using CoexEdit's web editor (customized FCKeditor).  Take a look at the before, during and after of each.  I think you will see why customers object to the standard methods, and will not be much mollified by Notes 8.5.

1) Notes 8.0.1 (looks the same in Notes 8.5 beta as you might expect)

Notes 8.0.1 client with both fields before editing


2) Firefox 3 before editing (rendered by Domino 8.0.1 on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

Firefox 3 rendered without editing


3) Firefox 3 during editing ("Best Fit for OS" with Domino 8.0.1 on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

Firefox 3 during editing with Domino 8.0.1


4) Firefox 3 after saving (rendered by Domino 8.0.1 on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

Firefox 3 after saving with Domino 8.0.1


5) In Notes 8.0.1 client after saving with Firefox 3 (rendered by Domino 8.0.1 on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

In Notes 8.0.1 client after saving with Firefox


6) Internet Explorer 7 before editing (rendered by Domino 8.0.1 on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

Internet Explorer 7 before editing with Domino 8.0.1


7) Internet Explorer 7 during editing ("Best Fit for OS" with Domino 8.0.1 on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

Internet Explorer 7 during editing with Domino 8.0.1


8) Internet Explorer 7 after saving (rendered by Domino 8.0.1 on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

Internet Explorer 7 after saving with Domino 8.0.1

9) In Notes 8.0.1 client after saving with IE7 (rendered by Domino 8.0.1 on top, CoexEdit on bottom)


In Notes 8.0.1 client after saving with IE7

10) Firefox 3 before editing (rendered by Domino 8.5 beta, CoexEdit on bottom)

For reasons that are not clear to me, the doclinks don't show up at all in the Domino rendering, whether they are from a local replica or not.  I will report that as a bug.

Firefox 3 before editing under Domino 8.5 beta 



11) Firefox 3 during editing ("Using JavaScript Control" with Domino 8.5 beta on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

Firefox 3 during editing under Domino 8.5 beta


12) In Notes 85 beta client after saving with Firefox(rendered by Domino 8.5 beta on top, CoexEdit on bottom)

Notes 8.5 beta client after saving in Firefox


Copyright 2008 Genii Software Ltd.

Tags:

Tue 16 Dec 2008, 10:55 AM
On Ed Brill's blog, I saw mention of Google Trends, and decided to do a bit of playing.  The results were surprising to me.  First, look at the stunning similarity in the two charts below.  Although someone wiser might hesitate to assume causal relationships, it seems clear to me that Google is saying that:

  • As "rich text" goes, so goes "Lotus Notes".  (Bah humbug to those who dismiss rich text!)
  • There are more searches for "rich text" than for "Lotus Notes", fairly consistently.  Who'd have thought it?
  • One of the six most important "rich text" news items in the past five years was our release of the Midas Rich Text C++ API.

Honestly, would you have thought any of those three things before reading this post?  Of course, it does raise the additional question of how any reputable organization could put out a chart with no scale for the Y axis?


Google Trends for Lotus Notes

Google Trends for rich text

Copyright 2008 Genii Software Ltd.

Tags: