are because no one has bothered to define them.">
Are Web Applications here to stay, or are they just another hype?
See Dave Shea's Web Apps are Hot for an overview of recent publications. See also Joel Spolski's perceptive How Microsoft Lost the API War article.
My Web Application adventures started when I became aware of the Web Hypertext Application Technology workgroup (WHAT), largely powered by Ian Hickson of Opera. I like Hickson's Web Forms 2.0 specification, so I took a long and good look at WHAT, too. It focuses on more than Web forms alone, taking the Mozilla/Opera Position Paper as its starting point. In this document Mozilla and Opera present their thoughts on design principles for Web applications.
I asked two questions on the WHAT mailing list, but didn't get any simple answers:
For the remainder of this page I will solemnly pretend that there is a definition for "Web applications" that clearly states how they differ from "Web sites", and that we all know exactly what we're talking about (even though I don't).
Roughly speaking there are two ways of implementing Web applications:
Why do people nonetheless search for complicated solutions? Why do they ignore the simple one that is right in front of them? Why don't they keep it simple?
In contrast, Web applications seem to herald the return of DHTML.
In the bad old days DHTML was the cool thing to do. If you didn't have a API for sliding layers you didn't count. A DHTML application was huge to download, buggy in use, and it didn't serve any discernible purpose except stroking the author's ego.
Web applications might cause the same trouble. The underlying desire for complexity is already present, and we only need a few people making gaseous sounds about a "paradigm shift" and "new generation applications" in order to pompously reinvent the DHTML wheel and go through another cycle of expectations and disappointments.
Fortunately we have a chance to avoid this fate, if we change our focus. DHTML focused on technology, on ways to create nifty cross-browser scripts without ever wondering why these scripts were important, or even useful. Right now, the Web application discussion also focuses on technology, and the danger of niftitis looms large, especially since Web applications are supposed to perfectly copy desktop application behavior.
Instead, think about usability and uniqueness. How do Web applications help users in their daily work? What makes Web applications unique when compared to desktop applications that perform the same tasks?
Web applications cannot compete with desktop applications in a desktop environment. Instead, they should capitalize on the advantages of the Web, and on improved usability. Initially usability will deteriorate, since everyone is used to desktop applications and some things work differently on the Web or are just not possible. Which positive points do Web applications have to offset these negative ones?
In order to draw users towards Web applications, they must have clear, easily explained advantages over desktop applications—and not all that stuff about "vendor independence" and "standards support", either. That's tech speak. Users don't care about it.
I feel that a purely technical focus will lead to the slavish copying of desktop application behavior to an alien environment where it'll lose any usability comparision. That's the same error DHTML proponents made years ago. A Web application should be a Web application, not a bad copy of a desktop application.
The following questions need answers:
If you like this blog, why not donate a little bit of money to help me pay my bills?
Comments are closed.