1 Reply Latest reply: Jul 17, 2009 6:34 AM by brianelliottlavoie RSS


    Hal_9000 Community Member

      I would really love to say how great Jamjar is, but I actually just didn't like the experience of using it. It is slow, clunky and cramped, and in spite of the heavy prompting, it isn't at all easy to figure out what you're supposed to do.

      Adobe describe Jamjar as "visually attractive". Why is it that in RIA's, "visually attractive" often seems to mean 'designed to appeal to children'? They've done a great job of the graphics, but this 'happy, bright, cartoon-like' thing is becoming corny, fast. If desktop apps looked like this, no one would use them.

      Another thing. Flex apps are often 'Jam' packed full of effects. Flex needs to get beyond this. For a while, it's been stuck somewhere between the 'blink tag' and early visual basic applications. A little goes a long way.

        • 1. Re: Slow
          brianelliottlavoie Community Member

          I agree that JamJar does work a little slowly, especially when you first create a new space.  However, I can't necissarily agree with your statement about the appeal.  I'm very pleased with the fact the Adobe sees that good looking applications are better than unappealing ones.  As a developer who's audience is mainly high school students, it can be hard to impress them with dirty, crummy looking apps that you have to pay big bucks for.  So the fact that I can use JamJar for free and have it look really nicely, I am definitely satisfied.