[Sigia-l] The future of WWW...

[Dave]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:44:40 -0400 (EDT), Michal Migurski
<mike at teczno.com> wrote:
> Software Interaction Design? The h.t.'s in both html and http stand for
> "hypertext," and I'd say that the standards which define the web have done
> an outstanding job at what they were designed to do - deliver documents
> and provide for a simple way to link from one to another. The fact that
> HTTP can /also/ be extended to handle the complexity of RIA's is the
> protocol's gift to you.

HTTP is not extendable to RIA's the advantage of RIAs is that it by
passes the asynchronous flaws of get/post of HTTP. RIAs can be
synchronous which is one of the best things about them.

> 
> 
> > There is NOTHING about HTML or even xHTML worth saving ... sorry.
> 
> I'd say that simplicity is HTML's great virtue.

But why hold onto a technology just to be simple. Why not just do
simple things w/ a more complex language. Just b/c I can do something
complex w/ C# doesn't mean I can't as well make a simple desktop
calculator either. This argument that HTML is simple is just not worth
it b/c in the end you are talking about what to do w/ the technology
not what the technology can do. I can be very simple and very usable
in most technologies that have a GUI component to them. This is the
point of DESIGN! To solve the right problems. What we have done w/
HTML is let the technology determine the solution which anyone in the
UX game will say putting the cart b4 the horse. Why have we so
willingly accepted this bastard child of a technology? I just don't
get what people are holding onto. The only issue I see w/ HTML is
unparalleled ubiquity. This is a legacy technology ad infinatum.

> > > > and it is time for a new technology to come along and better it?
> 
> No one's stopping you, seriously. http://www.worldofends.com/
> 
> The web began as a physicist's free-time experiment, and all the
> conditions which made it possible are still in effect. There is no reason
> why MS, Macromedia, or the Mozilla team can't create their own personal
> OS-integrated rich application platform. The fact that they have not done
> so without piggybacking on the web is a strong sign (to me) that there is
> something of value in it.

The whole point of this thread this that MS and Flash are pulling out
of the browser and the web w/ XAML and Central. And XUL (Mozilla's
contribution) requires the browser to be installed and the browser as
an addressing mechanism, but the apps in XUL themselves do not require
the browser per se. My problem w/ XUL is that no one has done a "pet
store" in it. If someone wants to make the pet store in such a way as
to compete w/ the Flash/.NET versions that are out there I'd be
compelled to consider it. Until then, it is not worth looking at b/c I
can't show it to anyone as a real means of thinking aloud w/ designers
about what it can or cannot do. As a designer, not a programmer, I
gotta see it to believe it. So far I have seen nothing worth believing
in either example or rhetoric.

> 
> 
> > "new"? oooo! scary quotes, eh? A text-based (non binary) RIA
> > infrastructure that is rich enough to finally work that is embedded at
> > the OS level for better performance. A dismantling of the browser so
> > that networked-based applications can have their own client
> > infrastructure. Even flash can't do this. No matter what it is reliant
> > on the browser or central.
> 
> You've debated this point on WebGUI, but I still think you haven't ever
> managed to define "Rich Internet Application" in a way that shows how
> Flash, Java, or XUL don't acceptably fit the bill, or why something from
> MS will be better in any tangible way besides potential wide adoption.

Well, for one it is integrated into the OS directly. Well, you can say
that's MS for ya, but hey! that's MS for ya. They do that, that's why
it is a monopoly after all. XAML and .NET can run directly from the OS
(yes, security hell, but UX dream). When I work in an application, why
would I open a web browser to do it? B/c of addressing? Bah humbug
that is so 1999. Aren't we past that yet w/ networked apps? G-d I hope
so.

> Solutions to _what_? Comparing the W3C, IE, and OSS in one sentence is
> apples, bananas, & oranges - the first is a consortium, the second is a
> product, and the third is an approach to software development - I don't
> think it's valid to say that a solution is too-anything unless it's clear
> which problem it isn't solving.

Actually, yes you are right ... I thought of W3C not as an
organization but a set of standards, IE as an "anti" set of standards,
and OSS as an attempt to create new standard-based applications.

The problem I'm trying to solve or at least describe is chaos. The
current system as Listera pointed out is based on tenets of
competitive chaos and it makes a designers (and I would imagine a
coder's) life quite a nightmare. The overhead of awkward limitations
when trying to create a compelling networked-based distributed GUI
application (a noble goal that I love doing) is just too high. All the
"great" ideas to make this system much more usable, useful, engaging,
learnable and intuitive all get the answer, "can't do it b/c of this
legacy or that legacy." Stop the legacies! Stop the madness!

> The internet is not a thing or a resource, it's an agreement. See WoE
> link above.

Well its an agreement of technology that's for sure. An addressing
system and an agreement of protocols. But so? the agreement of the
networking system is fine. I have no issue w/ it. I like UDP and other
synchronous IP based protocols. GREAT! But HTTP/HTML is so much of a
handicap in terms of usability and engagement. We are constantly
forced to hack ourselves around it. Doesn't that say a ton about its
limitations.

-- dave

ps. the CD thing in Listera's posting ... I forgot about Sony ... btw,
why is it that no one had any issue w/ the CD-protocol being the same
for 20 years? Did that hold back innovation? People concentrated on
designing on top of it, and not redesigning it. the DVD war that you
predict well missed its chance as DVD's are now so big in the US. I
can't imagine a major market change any time soon.

Now these technologies afford one thing that software doesn't.
Tangibility. Why would I ever want software to be stagnant? There is
no point to it, except to have a stationary target to build upon. HTML
has been that target for 10 years. That's a mighty long time for
software standard, eh? But then again C and C++ are even older and
while there are "upgrades" the core has been quite useful, no?