[Sigia-l] RIA: the wrong tree?

[Stew Dean]

On 24/05/07, Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net> wrote:
> "On more than a few occasions‹most recently in the context of Avalon
> [Windows Presentation Foundation]‹I¹ve observed here that both IT admins and
> end-users prefer browser-based apps to traditional compiled clients, for
> everything except content creation. Every time, I get emails and incoming
> pointers from people saying 'You just don¹t get it, the Web interfaces are
> so tired, we really need a richer UI paradigm.' The interesting thing is
> that these reactions are always‹every time, without exception‹from
> developers. Not once has an end-user type person written in saying they
> wished they could have a richer interface like the kind they used to have in
> compiled desktop apps."
>
> So says Tim Bray, co-inventor of XML, currently at Sun:
>
> <http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/11/03/>
>
> Is he right?

Yes, mostly.

Users often react to compelling interfaces. 'Rich' is a fairly
pointless word and can be translated into 'overly complicated' and
'whizzy' etc.

Simple and reactive interfaces that deliver the right experience for
the right platform are what users react well to. You'll never see them
ask for 'more animations' or 'more widgets' and respond well when
minimal animation is used (to set transitions) and things are kept
nice and clear.

As I have to repeat - developers make poor interface designers as they
like bells and whistles, they like to show off what they can do. When
not in developer mode developers like the same interfaces as the
average user.

I have to admit that the world would be better if developers (aka
engineers) where kept at arms length of interfaces for devices, such
as mobile phones. The interface for the Nokia N95, for example, is
overly complicated and fussy.

Stewart Dean