What are web based apps?
-
As many of you know I use an Electronic Health Record (EHR).
Someone posted this to their internal community.
As for the last post, I think what he means is that xxxxxx is written largely in HTML or XHTML code, that also relies on a lot of ActiveX controls, which is why it is so clunky and not very intuitive. It also limits the ability to create a new "shell" around the data that xxxxxxxx stores, because HTML and XHTML were not really designed to function as a database language. They are both document markup languages. Imagine trying to work with an Excel spreadsheet in a Word Document. You can only do so much with the data in a word document. But you can view it any number of ways in an Excel spreadsheet because that's what it's built for. It's also the reason why xxxxxxxxx does not lend itself very well to efficiency when it comes to clicks and menu selections. Each individual selection is a hyperlink, rather than what you can do in a database, where you can have nested menus, with each selection referring to a group of elements that in itself can be another group of menus. Is that techie enough for you?
Basically,xxxxxxxxx needs a total rewrite of their software. That's why aside from some color changes, it pretty much functions the same way it did ten years ago.Do I completely misunderstand the way the web works? Don't most pages run from HTML/XHMTL? Aren't we moving even more in that direction because of things like HTML5?
Also, is it reasonable to assume that a lack of what this person wants is due to the use of .Net and ActiveX? How about his analogy that using HMTL/XHTML is like trying to use a spreadsheet in a word processor? Or that HTML/XHTML and ActiveX don't lend themselves to function as a DB language - what does that even mean?
And lastly, the comment on everything a hyperlink instead of what you can do in a DB - again, not sure what he means there.
-
The web runs on HTML yes as PHP, ASP, etc all display HTML in the end, but the server side processing is the magic.
Javascript runs on the client side but still works within the bounds of HTML.
So this guy seems confused on what side he is trying to work with.
-
The person who wrote the post really does not work for the EHR company. From what I can tell he's only guessing about how they operate, and appears to be tossing around buzz words some other guy gave him.
Sure, the original app was written with many ActiveX controls and required the use of IE6, followed by 7, 8, 9. They claim to be dumping support for IE 9 this summer and requiring IE 10 or 11, Chrome or Safari (only on the Mac).
-
Oh noes! Who let the power user out?
Ā
The poor soul is confusing HTML with a server side language.
Ā
This is how I read it:As for the last post, I think what he means is that xxxxxx is written largely in HTML or XHTML code,
"I have heard of these initials and seen them on the internet." User may have clicked view page source.
that also relies on a lot of ActiveX controls, which is why it is so clunky and not very intuitive
"The activeX side of things is clunky."
It also limits the ability to create a new "shell" around the data that xxxxxxxx stores, because HTML and XHTML were not really designed to function as a database language.
The HTML is querying the database
They are both document markup languages.
Yes. They make the page look pretty.
Imagine trying to work with an Excel spreadsheet in a Word Document. You can only do so much with the data in a word document. But you can view it any number of ways in an Excel spreadsheet because that's what it's built for.
I don't know what to say to that^ other than: Yes, but Word CAN do tables and spreadsheets (to a limited capacity). HTML can not query a database. Poor choice of example.
It's also the reason why xxxxxxxxx does not lend itself very well to efficiency when it comes to clicks and menu selections.
This could be anything from capacity planning (more RAM, CPU and/or Network pipe), better hardware required (i.e. whole new box) or the actual code is old/poorly written/needs replacement. Going by what they have said, it seems as though they think that tinkering with the HTML output will improve things.
Each individual selection is a hyperlink, rather than what you can do in a database, where you can have nested menus, with each selection referring to a group of elements that in itself can be another group of menus.
Again, this is interface stuff not serverside. HTML and Javascript.
Is that techie enough for you?
To me this says: "I am a frustrated power user who doesn't like what is presented to me. It's not shiny and slick, therefore it sucks."
Basically,xxxxxxxxx needs a total rewrite of their software. That's why aside from some color changes, it pretty much functions the same way it did ten years ago.
"Someone has suggested the same things as laid out above previously and once implemented they had no effect on performance."
-
@Dashrender What EHR do you use, out of curiosity?
And jeeze, ActiveX, can we please shoot that horse already and move to real web based apps instead of dangerous things that only work on crappy browsers that came out of time machines?
You're right though, (X)HTML is how the web works, ActiveX is basically a browser plugin, I don't consider it a part of the web, just something that people who use the web, use if they're really unlucky.
-
I'm trying to work on my tack. Something that sometimes I'm sorely lacking in.
For example, I wanted to start by telling this guy that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He's claiming that since they don't use SQL or something like SQL that whatever DB they are using sucks - but he has no clue what DB they are using (I asked him).
While I'm sure he's complaining about performance as well, that's not the goal of his complaint. His main complaint is how the pages function. For example, there is a list of options on a page that just scroll forever, there is no way to click an arrow (for example) and shrink up that portion of the page, instead you just have to keep scrolling to get to the next section. He somehow thinks the DB has anything to do with that.
-
@Dashrender said:
I wanted to start by telling this guy that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
That's all you need to say in my opinion. Of course you can lay it all politely if you want
Anyway so he doesn't know what DB they use at all, but knows it's not SQL? How does he know?
-
Exactly - I'm back to the he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about.
Here's a bit more of our conversation
NS
I have no idea. But if it was SQL, I don't think they would have all these issues. My understanding is that SQL is platform independent.Me
I was under the impression that most if not all DBs were platform independant (at least on the User Experience side of things). As far as I understand it, the DB pretty much simply holds the data. Of course the DB can have builtin processes that help speed functions up, for example, the DB could have an index of patient names which would faster to look through than all the raw data.
The crux is the User Interface (UI), sometimes called the User Experience (UX) has limitations. For example, I think (though I could be completely wrong) that xxxxx was originally based on .Net. 10 years ago there were tons of programmers flooding the market, so shops like xxxxxx could pick these programmers up cheap. The problem of course is that the only browser that fully supported .Net was Internet Explorer.
Now that MS has released .Net into the Open Source environment, we'll probably see a lot of other browsers pick up support for it.NS
Correct. The database is in the background, the UI is what determines the front end experience. But some databases are more "agnostic" than others when it comes to how they handle a data call. And xxxxx was indeed very much rooted in the whole .net environment. I suspect that whatever DB they are using, it's rooted in the same kind of legacy code and doesn't play nicely with others. -
@Dashrender Wow, "platform independent," is he describing SQL as an actual piece of software not a language/mark up? And the rest he says is just... I don't even...
Because you can have SQL front ends to many different types of databases, some non-RDBMS also have SQL front ends.
He's an expert in being ignorant as hell.
-
Yep, and what's worse is that he's a physician who thinks he knows something, but it seems pretty clear that he really does not know this stuff at all.
It's one thing to be unhappy with a product, but to spout off about a bunch of stuff that's wrong... sadly other people are looking to him for guidance since he appears to know what he's talking about.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender said:
I wanted to start by telling this guy that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
That's all you need to say in my opinion. Of course you can lay it all politely if you want
Anyway so he doesn't know what DB they use at all, but knows it's not SQL? How does he know?
I agree, you are at a point where the guy doesn't really know what he is talking about. He neither has official info nor does he seem to really understand the terms or how they apply. He is right about some things, ActiveX is ancient and a silly way to make software. But that XHTML can talk to a database shows that he has absolutely no idea what he is saying and is just repeating terms.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But that XHTML can talk to a database shows that he has absolutely no idea what he is saying and is just repeating terms.
Could you imagine the utter fresh hell like:
<input type="submit" sql="UPDATE ..." /> -
@tonyshowoff said:
@Dashrender Wow, "platform independent," is he describing SQL as an actual piece of software not a language/mark up? And the rest he says is just... I don't even...
I had the same thought. He's not aware of what any of these terms mean. Nothing he is saying really makes sense.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yep, and what's worse is that he's a physician ....
Ah, that makes more sense. He sounds like a doctor. This is the state of medical education in America. This is why I fear doctors, few professions are more arrogant while being more ignorant. They have to have special education tracks to dumb things down for them. It would be a rare medical doctor that could even remotely have chosen an intellectual career track like engineering or science. The degree to which doctors are uneducated is scary and staggering.
There is a reason why I don't think that IT "professionals" should use the term "professional" because it associates us with career options like doctors which we should be embarrassed to be categorized with.
-
@Dashrender said:
It's one thing to be unhappy with a product, but to spout off about a bunch of stuff that's wrong... sadly other people are looking to him for guidance since he appears to know what he's talking about.
If this is how he behaves about things so incredibly easy and public as SQL language, databases, relational theory, HTML, etc. imagine the crap that he says when acting "as a doctor." I fear for the poor souls whose lives he puts at risk.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But that XHTML can talk to a database shows that he has absolutely no idea what he is saying and is just repeating terms.
Could you imagine the utter fresh hell like:
<input type="submit" sql="UPDATE ..." />tony++
-
@scottalanmiller Just wait until the OOP version comes out, then you'll be afraid
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If this is how he behaves about things so incredibly easy and public as SQL language, databases, relational theory, HTML, etc. imagine the crap that he says when acting "as a doctor." I fear for the poor souls whose lives he puts at risk.
^ This +1000
Refraining from ranting
