RIA Controversy -Continued

By Don Burnett

I just went over to the MS MossyBlog and read the latest comments over there, and while I agreed with Scott on the "RIA" terminology thing, I am not sure that I currently agree with the rest of what's happening over there exactly. While his points are very succinct and if I were Scott I'd probably be drawing the same conclusions. I know Ryan and I know he tries to keep everything as balanced as he possibly can especially with his current employer. I believe in both Ryan and Scott and love to read what both have to say. There is room for everyone here..

Here's where my opinion comes in:  I believe you can't look at press/commentary today and assume that information presented is without some point of view or agenda. If you look at cable news today you'll notice everyone has a different take on things whether it be CNN or Fox News.  I don't believe there is anything really wrong with, and having differing points of view actually gives us an opportunity to make up our own minds on things.. I really like reading Ryan Stewart's work. He is very insightful, and opinionated just like me and everyone else.

At the end of the day, we all are trying to do the same things, sometimes through a different company or a different technology, we can all learn from each other and work together and because of product competition we all as "consumers" end up with better products and technologies.

My point of bringing up the RIA definition thing in my columns here and elsewhere is not to "score points" for Microsoft or Adobe for that matter, but just to make the point that neither company really "own" the terms and both have appropriated usage and changed the meanings to fit their own strategies. I also pointed out that these strategies are very different. I believe Microsoft has been using "Rich Interactive Applications" since the days of MPC and more recently to talk about their "Software and Services Strategy". While, some years ago a Macromedia guy (most know him as the father of Cold Fusion), used the term and changed it to reflect "Internet" based rich applications. I pointed out the difference between the Microsoft term (which has been around since the original days of the Commodore-Amiga Multimedia computer and the ORIGINAL Apple Macintosh) and the Adobe term, really are different takes. Adobe's has been embraced to reflect the company's "Internet" focus.

But neither company "invented" the term "R-I-A", in it's original meaning "Rich Interactive Applications". I also stated that people still say "R-I-A" around the world and mean "Interactive" not "Internet" . Both terms have been defined and they are both valid. One really isn't an UPDATE of the other. They are different and since they are both still valid and used differently by different people, we should all understand that (the point of it in the first place)..

I have used Adobe products over the years after I moved from the Amiga platform, and I have always loved some of their products, but they don't always adapt well. I would say the same with Microsoft. There is never a "One size fits all" for everyone. Trying to use Photoshop or Flash to prototype the UI for a "Windows Platform App" for instance (especially a non-Internet  enabled one) has never worked out well for me.. But I can sure layout a photograph or a diagram with either. It's all about what you use things for and some are better than others. A current example of this is what I hear about Thermo and Blend from the Interaction Design community who rarely does anything but define how a design should work. They aren't happy with the current crop of products because they can't create and enforce their design rules in the products. They are still stuck in products like Visio for their work and can't move forward and be part of the new work flow as easily. My point here is we all have a long way to go.

As for Ryan and Scott, I'd love to get them both together in a Game of Guitar Hero II, I hear they both play a mean game of it :-)