Dylan Schiemann

Recap of the BayChi Rich Internet Applications Discussion on August 10 at PARC.

Reading the technology tea-leaves: Is a Rich Internet Application in your future?
David Temkin, Laszlo Systems
Mike Sundermeyer, Macromedia
Jim Hobart, Classic Systems Solutions
Ethan Diamond and Iain Lamb, Oddpost
PARC

This seminar began with an opening set of slides with way too much text and way too little time to read them. Several quotes were provided from previous BayChi seminars as far back as 1995 discussing the limitations of web based applications and technologies in delivering a smooth, fluid end-user experience. The question 'Does the navigation metaphor apply?' was asked, meaning does the traditional web-based hierarchical navigation structure apply to a web application, or does something more like a sliding windows metaphor make more sense, where information is revealed and concealed in response to user interactivity, without having to make additional server requests to display views. My response to this question is that it of course depends on the type and purpose of the application and its users.

The first panel speaker was Jim Hobart with a presentation titled: "Rich Internet Applications, Will they Enable or Disable us?' His company, Classic Systems Solutions, provides a corporate usability portal, training, consulting, usability lab, and other services related to usability of web applications.

Jim describes a Rich Internet Application as one that is complex, with a whole new level of interactivity. In 1999, when he was first involved with a large organization to build a web application, he told the client that there were two options: sucks, or sucks less. He described the natural progression of software applications as a function of usability such that web applications and web sites were a step back in terms of usability when compared to traditional client/server applications, with their main advantage being wide availability. He expects that the next wave of internet applications will have the flexibility and interface usability comparable or better than traditional software applications.

He describes the ultimate goal of applications being that of user synchronicity. By this he means getting users in the zone, achieving true productivity, working in the present, leveraging human potential. He describes a situation when everything just works, rather than the current web-based experience of click, wait, click, wait, click, wait.

The most powerful portion of this talk was the videos showing the testing of people in their usability lab. Three tests were shown: applications for selecting a camera, add a contact to a PIM, and choosing a paint scheme for a kitchen. They showed that the taskflow metaphor, i.e. trying to make the experience mimic the real world isn't necessarily a good thing, especially when it comes to replicating the information overload found by most shopping experiences. The paint selection app reminded me of the IKEA app for putting together a room of office furniture. Unfortunately, I felt that the usability testing wasn&3039;t as useful as it could have been because much of the commentary was focused on clearly broken interface features. Maybe those issues were not obvious before the testing, but I would have rather heard more information about the actual user experience rather than the issues with a slider that did not have sufficient precision.

Conclusions from this talk:

• study task flows
• be careful with metaphors
• keep it simple
• basics still apply

The next speaker was Mike Sundermeyer from Macromedia, giving a talk titled: "The Rich Internet Application Experience". Macromedia has designed ~50 applications, using the results of these designs to influence the design of their development software.

The main thing he said that I strongly agree with is that experience matters… meaning that how you provide the service and how your user feels while they're doing it is as important as the product actually working.

He then showed an Evolution of the web diagram from Forrester (very much like an evolution of man diagram), which implies that the web site is a regression from the client/server experience. The vision of the Rich Internet Application is bringing the greatness of past paradigms (client/server apps) with the reach and flexibility of the web. Of course, I had to wonder to myself the following: if web apps are so important to Macromedia, why are none of their development applications web applications? Mike then went on to make points about user experience:

• Online relationships are replacing in person digital relationships.
• Interface specific to their problem…
• Switching costs are low: so experience matters even more.
• Experience can yield significant ROI when used appropriately. (faster, increased revenue, less support calls, etc.)
• A great experience is useful, usable, and desirable.

He then asked the question: "What are RIAs good for" His answer was multi-step processes, expressing complex relationships, user customization, convergence, searching, filtering, sorting, persistence, offline, emotional appeal, brand, etc.

He also emphasized the separation of look and feel, implying that applications should strive to maintain their uniquely branded look while still trying to provide a familiar response and feedback mechanism for a navigation interface. However, I felt that their demos and examples were really about impressive animations and transitions, and less about building intuitive applications. It seems that they have done a great job with very low end applications, but do not attempt to address anything that is data intensive.

Macromedia is working on defining consistent patterns that solve problems across multiple use cases. My thought at this time was that the main benefit of the Macromedia web applications was adding more tactile feedback in response to user interaction, rather than the dreaded white screen between click and load of very traditional web applications..

Next up was David Temkin with the talk: "What's an RIA?" He began answering this question with the thought that it is a new application distribution technique (browse rather than install), a new development methodology (markup meets object-oriented programming), and a new user experience (best of web, best of GUIs, and more)

Their company delivers a platform for developing and deploying RIAs. Their client allows for flexible and consistent rendering across platforms, zero-install on 96% of browsers, and persistent UI across server roundtrips. They offer a standards-based platform, declarative xml for GUI, xml and xpath for data integration, JavaScript, XInclude, no flash authoring/ActionScript, Flash APIs. Their applications offer direct manipulation, windowing, keyboard control, double click, menus. So yes RIA can duplicate class Windows GUI, but that is not what the world wants. While they do have somewhat of the right idea in offering standards-based input, you are still locked into their technology and delivery mechanism. I do expect that as the market matures, they will have no choice but to expand to offer versions that also deliver XAML and SVG-based applications. If they do this, then they may have a more open, viable platform.

They emphasize the importance of occasional-use applications as this is what the consumer web is about. They make the point that there are different design considerations than normal applications, and that efficiency is not a be-all/end-all. I disagree with this point, as while users enjoy being entertained, it should not be gratuitous, or obviously wasteful of their time. What Laszlo offers that we (meaning DHTML/DOM/SVG developers) don't currently is solid animation and media integration.

David then presented demos of an earthlink start app and a kodak photo story teller, with an emphasis on their tab panel. He demonstrated their efficient use of space, continuous and transient transitions. Key points of their experience included expanding items in place, transiting to the view, and nice use of visual queuing to show how things are related. He then made the point that spatial interfaces are being replaced by querying interface, such as in rich web mail. He then gave some totally bogus information about how much better their web mail app is over DHTML e-mail… he obviously chose to ignore Gmail and Oddpost.

He concluded that RIAs enable a sea-change (more functionality, more flexibility, seamless integration of functionality, content, branding communication). He said that their platform has the goal of enabling engineers to embrace innovative UIs, making it very hard for an engineer to tell a designer that something cannot be done, empowering engineers who are serious about interactive applications, and enabling designers who can break out of the page model. In general, I agree with the message he had, but I just did not see his message matching up with what he showed. In other words, a great sales pitch for a products that does not live up to the message.

The final speaker was Ethan Diamond who co-founded Oddpost about 4 years ago, which was recently acquired by Yahoo! Ethan was by far the most entertaining speaker, though his attempt to demo a blog that ended up having an S&M photo was mortifying for him, and very funny. His talk was focused on Oddpost's features and benefits such as the application always being the latest version, requiring no backups, and having data accessible from everywhere. He asked why real apps are still tied to the desktop, and why most web apps are still slow with bad UI. He began his entry into this field at halfbrain working on a spreadsheet that worked inside a web browser. The demo of Oddpost was good… it loads quickly, with the entire app about 150k, all in DHTML, and then using xmlHttpRequest calls for changes/updates/etc. It looks like a desktop app, performs like a desktop application. Progressive filtering is done on the client. One cool feature: Generate subject… messages are donated by the user base… click a button to get a randomly selected message subject. This was quite possibly the most ideal time for his talk as it was right after the people who said that DHTML applications were too slow, and he showed that this was simply not the case. He also showed a very quick demo of Oddpost finally working in mozilla firefox.

The question and answer session was a bit weak, with most of the speakers avoiding the more difficult questions. We talked with Ethan after the talk for a few minutes. Overall, it was an interesting and informative talk, and shed some insight into both the general market perceptions of these types of applications, and also how various companies are selling the story of sophisticated internet applications.