by Don Burnett
Over on Scott Barnes' Blog he talks about why he uses the terminology "Rich Interactive Applications" versus "Rich Internet Applications" when using the term RIA. It's really not a slight at anyone who may have coined the term "RIA", but interactive rich applications have been around forever and before the Internet even.. We used to call these multimedia applications and they started out on floppies, migrated to CDs and DVDs and now have evolved to the global network. Ask the folks who used to use HyperCard, or the folks who used educational authoring systems...
Rich Interactive Applications also represents a diversified solution, rather than just the Internet as as delivery medium. This includes mobile, and many different delivery mediums. One of the things that Microsoft realized with the Expression Studio product line is they wanted a way to consistently allow graphical assets to be able to transfer seamlessly across mediums, wether it be the Web, Windows Platform Applications, and whatever medium might be next. That's why they created XAML and it's such a good way to work between multiple delivery mediums (not just the Internet). So they were trying to solve a bigger problem how to transfer art between mediums while leaving the integrity of the design intact. I believe the solution carries through this workflow (process), and does it in a way that allows the design to retain the integrity, even after it's been handed to the developer to do the code behind the application. This is beyond the vision of Rich Internet Applications. Which as Scott correctly identifies is a "misnomer".
Rich Interactive Applications represent a wider view including non-Internet delivery mediums, though it does encompass most of the goals of "Rich Internet Applications" .. They both have similar but different goals. Rich Interactive Applications have a wider more progressive view on supporting the current delivery methods (Internet, CD/DVD/Mobile) but being able to transition to new mediums that we haven't thought of or planned for yet. Web/Internet delivery is only one medium in the entire solution that has to be addressed and scaled to. Microsoft with the Expression Studio product line has delivered on this ability and support for multiple mediums with the same assets.
I believe "Rich Internet Applications" and "Rich Interactive Applications" are indeed two very different visions, encompassing some similar goals but not the same goals. Rich Interactive Applications cast a wider net to support different mediums (not just the Internet). We need to understand the differences and even the differences in the tools, to understand better how they support their underlying goals. I think a lot of "R-I-A" bloggers are missing this because they don't remember the world pre-Internet and assume no medium might ever replace it, which through the history of civilization has proved false. We have used many mediums over the years. The Internet is today, but we don't know what the future might hold. Microsoft's solution scales to other platforms and things that go "beyond internet" and outside of that space. Not only with Expression products like Blend have the re-invented the "workflow" and given a solution that leaves the integrity of the design intact on multiple delivery mediums.
What do you think we want to hear from you if you use Blend, how has it improved your ability to target different delivery mediums (platforms) with a design? How did it change your workflow?
