Are general users ready for Rich Web Applications?

[digitalrinaldo]

Hello,

I am interested in starting a discussion about some challenges I am seeing with Rich Web Applications. I have had some discussions with usability experts and they seem to have a hard time understanding the value of staying on one page and having rich widgets there. In other words they actually ask questions like why doesn't it go to a new page. Another danger, I see is the poor use of widgets. It is getting very easy to create applications thanks to toolkits like extjs. So I have a bunch of questions and ideas I wanted to discuss. Where could we host such a discussion?

[Animal]

I don't see users of local applications wondering where the "next page" is.

They just perform operations.

It's the "next page" thing that's taken some getting used to.

[Eric24]

I agree w/Animal. My perspective is that web design and application design paradigms are two different things. Historically, the early web-based applications relied on web design paradigms because that's all they had. It's not that clicking on a link or opening a separate window in order to accomplish a task was better, it's just that the web worked that way. Today, this has almost created two armed camps: 1) the "web design" purists that want to fit an application into the design rules of a website, and 2) people that see the benefits of web-deployed/web-accessible applications, but also realize that the UI richness of frameworks like ExtJS provides a much better overall user experience.

My 0.02 worth...
Eric

[jay@moduscreate.com]

From my experience, the answer is no - and will continue to be no until web apps are ubiquitous. Most people are used to the browser browsing web pages, not serving up web applications. I've Developed RIAs for many small companies and at least three large ones such as Marriott International, Lockheed Martin and now JPMorgan Chase. In my experience there are (still) many challenges that need to be overcome such as the navigation buttons (back, fwd, reload,etc). Many folks are just used to web pages acting like plain 'ol web pages.

I see huge companies such as BMC, IBM, HP, NetVonyant still producing so called web 1.0 applications with little to no web 2.0 flavor. I am not too sure if this is a culture thing, but I pisses me off because their products could be much better.

There might be a possibility that Ext may be used to develop a 3rd party product for JunOS (Juniper OS). :) It would be interesting to see this happen.

[digitalrinaldo]

Hello,


Thanks to all of you for responding so far. I usually develop interfaces and products for developers. Recently I have been doing some work for more general users and I could not believe users asking me to make web pages flat and have them say things like this, "why did you put those results in that tabbed table thing". Can't it work like Google, that is what search is supposed to look like. Having said that, if Google were to provide a more functional interface I guess I would be allowed to use the tabbed thing. At the end of the day users are what we are in business for. So what are the challenges when offering alternatives to the "next page". I heard a few mentioned so far, the dreaded back button. I have not looked at ext's ability to save state automatically. I tried the YUI history manager and it didn't work well for me. BTW, I dropped YUI in favor of exjs. I hope fully functional Rich client apps on the web don't become apps for specialists or even worse when you develop an application you have to make two versions, the dynamic and the flat version. I wonder if part of the issue is that the majority of web interface designers don't really have the right skills to understand dynamic applications. What I have learned from this, is to introduce dynamic functionality slowly. We took out over 90% of our advanced features like expanders, dynamic drop downs, auto complete, collapsible panels to satisfy what average web users are perceived to be expecting. I am not discouraged but being pragmatic and seriously considering how to provide two interfaces as a default pattern when building applications for the web that are often as functional as a thick client application.

[jay@moduscreate.com]

i think one way to help the users is to gradually add features/functionality. imagine if you're used to a web page, and all of a sudden you have all of this "stuff". It's kind of frightening for the average user. One of my customers is developing a really large application for the legal industry. This is a huge challenge that we face today. Finding the perfect mix of web2.0 is paramount to their success.

[willgillen]

Hello,


...or even worse when you develop an application you have to make two versions, the dynamic and the flat version.


We just had a similar argument for an application we are designing. However, our argument for "two versions" centers around accessibility from PC vs. Phone. Most phones' web browser barely (if at all) support web 2.0 interfaces. So, for our application, it appears we are going to have to write a 'mobile' interface that has virtually NO web 2.0.... Might want to keep that in mind.

[devnull]

I think the main problem is just that the next/prev/reload buttons are there at all; ie its an application that is forced to run in a web browser so people treat it as a web page. If you can remove the browser chrome, people will think of it as an application instead of a web page. Most browsers nowadays have a chrome-less or "kiosk" mode that can be utilized, and of course there are emerging technologies such as adobe air that can help with the problem.

[jay@moduscreate.com]

.. not just that. there are inescapable issues like the 'backspace' button not being properly trapped, which is just like pressing the back button :(

[Animal]

Yes, the backspace button is an annoying problem. If you inadvertently blur a field, then press it, you're shagged.

[ThorstenSuckow]

We just had a similar argument for an application we are designing. However, our argument for "two versions" centers around accessibility from PC vs. Phone. Most phones' web browser barely (if at all) support web 2.0 interfaces. So, for our application, it appears we are going to have to write a 'mobile' interface that has virtually NO web 2.0.... Might want to keep that in mind.

Zend Framework - contextSwitch for the win! \:D/