If people judge the search engine based on the look of the results list, then... But I'll grant you, yes, there's some similarity there.
Some more criteria
- how relevant are search results
- how usable is the search interface
- how attractive is the search interface
- how organic, adaptive and context-sensitive is the search interface (when, where, who)
- how well does the search engine support a particular domain (Wolfram|Alpha vs Google)
- how well does the search engine support language grammars to deeply understand questions
- how well does the search engine support exploration
- how well does the search engine integrate with other services (SkyDrive, Thumbtack?)
- how well does the search engine integrate with third parties
All of these are important.
If Bing has an attractive, usable, fresh search interface with very relevant results and direct support for many knowledge domains and websites, well then it could pose a challenge to Google. The anti-thesis of the "one logo, one input box and a few text links" search engine interface.
I'd like the search engine, browser and cloud storage to work closer together and Bing looks like a little step in that direction. Next up I expect some of the entity extraction experiments on live labs to pay off so the search engine knows more about our interests than just a set of links and questions or keywords.
Lovely informational. I remember having used CAS and scratching my head a few times. The new model looks much simpler.
May 27, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Cool! - looking forward to it
If Ping is about what Microsofties are talking about I'm not sure requests are appropriate but there are some topics that really come to mind
Don't much mind the format as is. The audio sounds quite compressed to me but the editing poses no issues ditto.Still a fan
- Semantic Web and Microsofts use of OWL
- Wolfram|Alpha and Microsofts angle
- Interview with Stephen Wolfram
- The "Oslo" platform and Microsoft's long-term perspective on data, semantics, programming languages and virtual machines - is there a coherent story or a palette of stories
- Powerset and Microsoft's use of its new computational linguistics powertoy
- Does Microsoft have the confidence to be transparent about strategy
Nice interview and a pragmatic explanation on the past, present and future of the designer.
It's okay to be a fanboy, but please, these are valid arguments. This is not comparing HTML with WPF, this is comparing the Windows Forms designer with the WPF designer. It is also not comparing the feature sets, only the editing experience and ease of use. XAML is quite simple, no doubt, but the demo is about the designer. That is the whole point.
The WPF data model is very wholistically thought out and clean. Compared to HTML/CSS/DOM et al, there is no competition, but this is not the comparison.
I have to agree with you entirely [Werewolf], I was thinking exactly the same thing. One other thing is that somehow the styling is oddly abstract and doesn't feel as Window-ish as when you do a Windows Forms application. In the video, the XAML editor is always present and to me, if you want to demonstrate the power of the visual editor, you need to hide that text editor away. If it has to constantly assist you, the visual editor is lacking. Nothing wrong with the XAML editor of course (although with M, one may hope to see an even friendlier syntax in the future.)
That being said, yep, there are some nice goodies in there, like search - that is really something that should be made pervasive everywhere, like in the add reference dialog where you can add a reference to an assembly, for example (not sure if this is already the case in 2010). The property editor is also looking very nice and improved. And even as much as I'd like to avoid having to use the outline panel as much as possible, it is indeed very helpful and appreciated.
Brad Abrams demonstrated Silverlight 3 before Mix where he showed how "Line of Business" applications are made easier and prettier in Silverlight 3. The default stying was improved there. It still feels as if you have to bend the design to get what you want with a default WPF application, but then again, my main experience so far is with Windows Forms. I would actually say the same thing for Windows Forms, to some extent, but it has a vastly more mature editing experience. Of course the task of supporting the full WPF data model in the designer is not something I envy anyone...
Another thing Brad Abrams, or someone else, showed, was this nice mockup style, where it almost looked like the application was drawn with crayons. Very cool stuff for prototyping. That Silverlight is getting this support is very cool. That WPF applications out of the box are still somewhat "odd-ball", not so much. That Silverlight is a subset of WPF and that you can move assets between the two will of course help mitigate this.
On the other hand, I'll not complain about the vast feature set of WPF (it's vastly cool), but the sentiment that if all you care about is the core application logic and UI needs to get out of your way, then you will be a bit frustrated because the Windows Forms designer still does a better job at this. Even if you do care deeply about the UX and GUI, you probably want to get to your goal as easily as possible. The fluency of editing Windows Forms menus is but one example of how a good designer saves you time.
To put a counter-oppinion - I feel quite comfortable with the format and the location. It is a nice cosy format and a pleasure to watch. I would love to see more of this. The speed of the speaker may put some requirements on the listener, depending on background, but people are different and one has to expect that. That it does not take place in some office can be a plus. I would argue that better sound and visual quality is very much appreciated when doing interviews. Not that we want to loose the authenticity and spontaneity, if you will, of random walks around various buildings but this is a nice complement that is well suited for communicating the actual material (which would seem appropriate for those who feel the talking is fast). So kudos from here at least.
About the actual splitting up of the videos into chunks. I must admit that long deep videos are something I like but downloading all three and watching them one after the other is not something I consider a challenge or significant annoyance. And if the splitting is done with a rationale behind it, then even better. But it's always a balance, if the videos become too small, they feel "skinny" and with too little meat.
Last but not least: Love the content here as well.