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?
6 comments:
Firstly, no one develops multimedia applications for CD or DVD anymore. The internet is where it is. So you are making this weak argument to justify rebranding the term RIA and the point is so moot I can't possibly finish this comment ...
Not really true, people do publish CDs and DVDs. Some applications still are better in that format. You might not got to a software store very much anymore, but I assure you if you hit up CompUSA or Best Buy, you'll still find them there (and new ones that haven't been there since the 90s), along with the games etc.
The education market is still quite busy with these kinds of products, they just don't get the instant publicity that the internet medium gives today.
The point is not really rebranding but the fact that Microsoft's products really do support transporting graphical assets and design across mediums without loosing the integrity of the design. This is the first time we have had this capability on a grand scale, because the graphical assets no longer have to be adapted to fit someone else's UI gadgets and the programmer can make a consistant look across platforms and apps.
I really also suggest you read Microsoft's paper on software and services and what look at what they have implemented now.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa905319.aspx
As Scott says in his blog "the word Internet in RIA doesn't always apply. Interactive for me was the correct wording, as it doesn't confuse per say, in that If I were to approach a customer and state "I am building you a Rich Interactive Application" it takes on a whole new context to "I am building you a Rich Internet Application"."
Don, "may have coined it" isn't accurate. Macromedia COINED it...bottom line.
If Scott was simply stating, for himself, that he preferred it...no problem. The problem is Microsoft is trying to use the word like they are coining it.
Who cares when it was being used and for what prior to the web. It has no bearing on this discussion. Neither does how Blend transcends the designer/developer workflow (which it is very nice) have any meaning in this convo.
The bottom line here is the industry knows RIA as a Rich Internet Application (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Internet_application). Now, speculation here, Microsoft knows RIA is attached to the Flash Platform so they want to reinvent it so when the acronym RIA is used Silverlight comes to mind.
I'll pose the same question to you:
If you create an Ajax app that does NOT use XML, what do you call it then? Ajaj (2nd j for json)? Ajaws (ws = web services)?
I coined a new term: MSRIA.
There...argument is over.
You guys are misunderstanding what I am saying and I am not arguing it. I am not suggesting Microsoft is rebranding. I am just saying they are still using the "original term".
I am just saying that they are actually two different terms which unfortunately spell out "R-I-A". One doesn't negate the other and the reverse and they are not the same thing.
Having done Interactive Development since the mid 1980s, I think "Rich Interactive Applications" is a broader, more sustainable term. I like it better myself and it includes a broader scope.
Rich Internet Applications= Internet enabled applications
and
Rich Interactive Applications= applications not having anything to do with the Internet but may support it as well.
Therefore you can't call them "Rich Internet Applications" if they include applications and delivery mediums that are not network connected in some way.
I think the differentiation is very important and the point of even bringing this up again has nothing to do with the fact that they abbreviate out the same.
The in fact they are two different terms that don't mean the same thing.
If the public doesn't see/know the difference it will cause confusion. Both are valid usage still today for "R-I-A". I think there is room for both to exist.
It's just more work for marketeers to explain it.
I have been doing interactive design and development and articles about technology since way before the internet was even available, in the late 80s I started.
We always called applications with HYPERTEXT or mixed media Rich Interactive Applications. This definition still fits with Microsoft's vision of software and services and they use that term. However, they didn't define it originally. I don't remember who did, but I remember the first time I used it.
This term RIA (Rich Interactive Application) was even around back when I was doing work on the Amiga platform, the first multimedia computer which even pre-dates Microsoft's efforts in the area.
I think it's important people know about both and the differentiation. It's not "rebranding", it just using the original term and vision. Not something that someone took and adapted later for one medium of delivery.
I am suggesting it's actually two different terms.
Back in the original days of multimedia, on the Amiga Platform we used it (which even pre-dates Microsoft's entry into this arena which is broader in scope).
I used this term for the first time in 1989 in a report of the AmiExpo Chicago show for GEnie to describe a nowadays defunct software product called "CanDo" by a small company called Innovatronics and AmigaVision by Imsatt Corporation would allow the user to create their own rich media enabled applications. Innovatronics and Imsatt used it way back then for their multimedia authoring descriptions and advertising.
For more info on CanDo or AmigaVision: Here's what Wikipedia had to say about it under application building tools on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_software) ..
I quote "CanDO was one the first application building tools, capable of create programs for Amiga that were totally independent (compiled or full binary). It is based on a visual interface, after the style of modern "visual programming" approach to programming which became famous with Visual C and Visual Basic from Microsoft. Although CanDO has nothing in common with Visual C and Visual Basic, it is a program mouse driven with an icon approach, and its internal programming is really like an interactive flow chart of functions, just like VISUAL programming tools from Microsoft.
Like CanDO on Amiga, there is Amiga Vision. It is a VISUAL "application building" tool made by Commodore itself in the times of the launch of Amiga A3000, and it was released for free to all those who bought an Amiga A3000.
The Vision is more than a language aimed at multimedia, all icon driven, and the flow chart of the functions was realized all graphically, on a page in which the user could arrange visually all the icons each one representing a program function. Vision saved files (projects) could not be used as pure binaries. From this point of view, the Amiga Vision "application building" tool was an interpreted language.
The AmigaBasic created by Microsoft, CanDO, and then Amiga Vision inspired Microsoft itself to an approach to Visual programming with their line of Visual programming languages, such as Visual Basic and others."
I don't think either party should be touting "ownership" of either term..
Post a Comment