What is an Rich Internet Application (RIA)?
Posted on July 29, 2008
Filed Under webapps |
I’ve started listening more and more to the podcasts from the JavaPosse recently. At first, I found the format a bit dry but these guys do grow on you. I’m now past the getting to know them period. Anyway there was an interesting discussion on what is an RIA that overflowed into another podcast given the amount of listener feedback they received.
Now I hadn’t given this much thought but what do you think an RIA is? Which of the following are RIAs:
Take a couple of seconds to think about that and then read David Herron’s Thoughts on Rich Internet Applications. Now go back and classify the above applications.
Now think about these new types of web application that can you tear off from the web browser and place on your desktop and for them to continue working. At that point I realised that RIA is too broad term and trying to stuff all this types of application into that bucket is only fuelling the confusion. But do we need another term? I think discussing the terms will deliver much more value.
So who’s gonna kick things off…
Comments
3 Responses to “What is an Rich Internet Application (RIA)?”
Leave a Reply
I don’t think David got this right. It’s not about “internet-enabled” applications, but applications “accessible via internet”. Almost every application now is somehow internet enabled. Heck, we could even call MMORPG games RIA’s.
Rich Internet Application term came up in Macromedia papers back there in 2001 describing a paradigm shift from dummy web pages generated totally by serverside, using links, sessions and forms pretending to be “application”, to actual software that “is built like” application. And of course, because of this, offering better user experience and enjoyment, something that “wasn’t there before”. RIA’s are generally thick clients that connects to server via internet. But main point is that RIA can stand on its own, being full blown client application that uses server only for data access, but no longer for view or logic. Those kind of apps could as well use xml files as backend or something else.
The problem is that many people confuse web2.0 and RIA. It’s not the same. Flickr is web2.0 app (community based, sharing, social), but I wouldn’t call it RIA. It’s still bunch of html pages. My best definition for RIA is that it’s application accessible via internet, but behaving and looking like desktop application.
Generally, I *think* that you could develop RIA using html solution (heavy GWT, maybe Gears, lots of JS/DOM calls), but it’s hard, because of limitations of technology. We’re yet to see brilliant mature solutions basing on Flex or WPF, or maybe new player on the market. Sooner or later most of software development will shift into web. Word 2012 will be accessible under word.office.com and it will look and behave like current Word 2007 on desktop. It’s just that whole updating and installing thing will be gone.
GMail is RIA. It’s just email client, but you don’t have to install it and you can run it instantly from anywhere in the world. Picnik is RIA - it’s your photo library with ability to edit pictures. Google Earth and iTunes are not RIAs. Should we call Microsoft Word RIA, because once a while it call mother server for updates and fixes?
Interesting.
So, am I correct in picking up that RIA are not installed in the traditional sense but are delivered over the Internet, when they may involve a small amount of installation on the desktop. Furthermore, all updates and fixes are delivered over the Internet.
Are there any other characteristics?
I would say that RIAs also aim to make you “wow” when it comes down to interface. It’s the word “rich” from first letter. Some even translate RIA as Rich Interface Application.
RIA is just two steps forward from standard “fill form” app and one step forward from “right click to bring contextual menu” desktop apps. There are many usability or “eyecandy” stuff we could have in our applications. The way apps are built (designed) right now does not necessarily have to mean that it will be the same in 2012. Check out http://flex.org/showcase/ and think of what you will get when you click this “categories” combobox. Compare results.
Now, maybe our interface is still crappy? Let’s try http://www.dontclick.it/. Can you resist to click? What if our mouses will be without buttons soon?