131–140 of 171 posts
This does not benefit your customers in any way.
It does not benefit their clients, either.
And brain activity around it is a distraction from what your business does.
At best.
Good luck.
If you want people to use it on the web: do not under any circumstances use the pure-canvas approach. You must use real DOM, or it will be an endless frustration that turns many people away. I’ve written about the problems quite a few times, look through https://hn.algolia.com/?type=comment&query=chrismorgan+pure+... if you’re interested. If you’re not intending it to be used via the web, don’t worry. But it’s a gene…
It’s a great point. This uses the canvas element only because it’s rendering in the browser. But this is really a desktop application, so the canvas element doesn't come up as a concept outside of WASM. Your main contention seems to be that nobody other than web browser implementers can render and edit text, and thus we should be limited to the set of applications that can run on the DOM and leverage the web browser’…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it requires shipping an entire web browser That’s a moot point and completely irrelevant for 99.99% people.
Perhaps that is an accurate percentage, but lawyers are in that .01%. If you're competing with Microsoft Word on performance you'd better be stupid fast and lightweight. Transactional lawyers routinely have dozens of Word documents and PDFs open at a time. Not long-term viable with something like Electron.
If you want people to use it on the web: do not under any circumstances use the pure-canvas approach. You must use real DOM, or it will be an endless frustration that turns many people away. I’ve written about the problems quite a few times, look through https://hn.algolia.com/?type=comment&query=chrismorgan+pure+... if you’re interested. If you’re not intending it to be used via the web, don’t worry. But it’s a gene…
It’s a great point. This uses the canvas element only because it’s rendering in the browser. But this is really a desktop application, so the canvas element doesn't come up as a concept outside of WASM. Your main contention seems to be that nobody other than web browser implementers can render and edit text, and thus we should be limited to the set of applications that can run on the DOM and leverage the web browser’…
That being said, if this is truly a desktop application, why waste time making it run in a browser? If the point is to have a preview, put the time into making some good short videos that can go into a preview page.
I'm excited for the prospect of lawyers running Linux as their daily driver This does not benefit your customers in any way. It does not benefit their clients, either. And brain activity around it is a distraction from what your business does. At best. Good luck.
I'll have to do another write-up about it sometime, but a lot of Tritium's automated tests are written in docx files. So building for Linux as an afterthought allows an employee to develop from their preferred platform (if it's Linux) while still getting the full experience. Also there is something quite informing about discovering differences between platforms that help you to better understand the capabilities of each.
I also do believe one day we'll see, e.g., crypto startups' lawyers using Linux. And they'll be happy Tritium customers :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps that is an accurate percentage, but lawyers are in that .01%. If you're competing with Microsoft Word on performance you'd better be stupid fast and lightweight. Transactional lawyers routinely have dozens of Word documents and PDFs open at a time. Not long-term viable with something like Electron.
Isn't word really slow and also implemented as a web browser currently?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps that is an accurate percentage, but lawyers are in that .01%. If you're competing with Microsoft Word on performance you'd better be stupid fast and lightweight. Transactional lawyers routinely have dozens of Word documents and PDFs open at a time. Not long-term viable with something like Electron.
VS Code, the aforementioned very performant Electron-based IDE, would like to differ
In any event, VS code is only required to render text in a single font, with very few layout concerns, styling, run-level formatting, etc. that require re-flowing across multiple of pages, etc. And each of those is text files measuring in the bytes. Tritium, by contrast, has to hold and operate on PDFs and Word documents each with very complicated layout and rendering logic and measuring in the kbs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a great point. This uses the canvas element only because it’s rendering in the browser. But this is really a desktop application, so the canvas element doesn't come up as a concept outside of WASM. Your main contention seems to be that nobody other than web browser implementers can render and edit text, and thus we should be limited to the set of applications that can run on the DOM and leverage the web browser’…
I for one appreciate the "no html" approach. That being said, if this is truly a desktop application, why waste time making it run in a browser? If the point is to have a preview, put the time into making some good short videos that can go into a preview page.
If you want people to use it on the web: do not under any circumstances use the pure-canvas approach. You must use real DOM, or it will be an endless frustration that turns many people away. I’ve written about the problems quite a few times, look through https://hn.algolia.com/?type=comment&query=chrismorgan+pure+... if you’re interested. If you’re not intending it to be used via the web, don’t worry. But it’s a gene…
The approach they've taken can create frustration, but it can also be seamless for users and create joy. For instance, I got to try out their app without any setup on my part, and then I can download it and it works exactly the same on my Windows and my Mac machines, because it's the same codebase for all three platforms. That kind of story was the holy grail of UI tooling for many years, and I think we should keep going down that path to improve it, despite frustrations along the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No attorney who is flummoxed by this UX is going to touch an AI product in any meaningful way. Making legal tools for lawyers who would otherwise be using cuneiform tablets or the dictation pool is a waste of conversation. Looking similar to the tools a seventy five year old lawyer uses is like making an F1 car that would look familiar to Jackie Stewart: yeah, it’d probably help him adapt, but not enough to be compet…
It's not about being flummoxed, it's about being annoyed enough not to give it a chance How much less adoption would Rust have gotten if it looked like OCaml instead of C++? Its adopters are not stupid, they could have figured out alien syntax if they were already convinced of the benefit. But selling someone on an entirely new substrate for their professional work is a huge ask. You need to make it as immediately-pa…