RE: FN-FORUM: ActiveX Content, Internet Explorer

date posted 18th January 2006 15:54

Grazi Sam,

Thanks to Tam to, the helpful guides of experienced people like yourselves
really helps alot


>From: Sam Morgan [EMAIL REMOVED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL REMOVED]
>To: "FN-FORUM / [EMAIL REMOVED] [EMAIL REMOVED]
>Subject: RE: FN-FORUM: ActiveX Content, Internet Explorer
>Date: 18 Jan 2006 15:43:47 -0000
>
>
>Nope you have the wrong end of the stick, we are talking about applications
>run in the browser window that can have direct access to the users local
>system, files etc. there is no default detection you have to detect using
>server side (or client side script) and since AFAIK ActiveX will only work
>with IE it is easier just to look for IE and then default to Java for all
>the rest since Java is available for most platforms (Including IE).
>
>The reason for not just giving them the Java component is that -
>
>a. although IE bundled with its own version of java called MSJVM (Microsoft
>Java Virtual Machine) Java owned by Sun took MS to court and stopped them
>distributing it with IE and only recently allowed them again so many IE
>users don't have Java installed.
>
>b. The ActiveX actually works nicer and feels better to use than the Java
>component which uses it's own versions of the file selectors depending on
>the version of java you have installed.
>
>So basically gives you the best of both worlds and it's a better experience
>for most of the users.
>
>Regards
>
>Sam Morgan
>
>WiredEyes / WebClickGo
>tel (Uk): +44 (0)20 7100 2178 / tel (Italy): +39 070 766 242
>fax (uk): 0871 433 2278 / fax (Italy): 070 330 9939
>web : www.wiredeyes.com / www.webclickgo.com
>----
>umop ap!sdn w,! aw dlaH
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL REMOVED] [EMAIL REMOVED] On
> > Behalf Of that woman
> > Sent: 18 January 2006 16:01
> > To: FN-FORUM / [EMAIL REMOVED]
> > Subject: RE: FN-FORUM: ActiveX Content, Internet Explorer
> >
> >
> > I think i get it. so we're more talkin about how directly
> > the scripts are
> > executed? so wud it be safe for me to think that ie assumes
> > default activeX
> > object if there is none specified? wud it be better to simply
> > offer jupload
> > to everyone and assume ie users will get ActiveX instead?
> >
> >
> > >From: Sam Morgan [EMAIL REMOVED]
> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL REMOVED]
> > >To: "FN-FORUM / [EMAIL REMOVED] [EMAIL REMOVED]
> > >Subject: RE: FN-FORUM: ActiveX Content, Internet Explorer
> > >Date: 18 Jan 2006 14:49:10 -0000
> > >
> > >
> > >Here's a situation for you.
> > >
> > >Multiple large file uploads with progress bar (We are
> > talking sometimes
> > >over
> > >100 files of around 2MB each).
> > >
> > >In one digital photo processing site I am developing I use
> > ASPUpload and
> > >Xupload, the ActiveX is really nice to use if the user has
> > IE, it uses all
> > >windows dialogs and feels like they are working in windows
> > and it works
> > >well
> > >so I've given the best experience to 70% of the users, then
> > for the other
> > >30% on other browsers I give them Jupload, a Java version
> > which still works
> > >well but just not quite as nice and requires java.
> > >
> > >Although if you know of a flash file uploader that works
> > well I'd be happy
> > >to consider using that instead.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Freelancers, contractors earn more with Prosperity4
>Call 0870 870 4414 or visit www.prosperity4.com
>and benefit from Inland Revenue approved expenses today.
>
>To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html
>
>