RIA vs. RIA - Semantic Showdown
Rich I Applications have generated a lot of interest as Microsoft & Adobe have focused attention on Flash/Flex and Silverlight. But what does the 'I' stand for? Abobe first described the term "rich Internet application" in 2002. Microsoft has more recently referred to RIAs as "Rich Interactive Applications". Ryan Stewart from Adobe and Scott Barnes from Microsoft are on the forefront of the acronym war waged in the blogosphere. Who will win?
Let's break it down.
| Topic | Ryan Stewart (Internet) | Scott Barnes (Interactive) | Winner |
| Author Credibility | Ryan started tagging posts on his blog as 'Rich Internet Applications' in July 2006. That's almost 15 months of tagging power behind 'internet'
Plus he is the Rich Internet Application Mountaineer.
You can't deny the dedication of a man who is scouring the back country and mountain tops for Rich Internet Applications. | 4 posts over the last few months tagged with 'Rich Interactive Applications'.
The quickest way to convince people is repeat Rich Interactive Application until it's stuck in their heads. Maybe even add a catchy tune sung by John Cougar Mellencamp.
"This is ouuuuur country"
Haunting isn't it?
From the east coast to the west coast it's Rich Interactive Applications.
| Stewart |
| Staying on Message | From Ryan's blog:
"RIA confusion exists in many places. I think Flash and Silverlight are VERY much Rich Internet Application technologies. They are bringing a rich, interactive desktop-like experience to the web, which is the whole point."
Confusion? You just said they were interactive. I don't know what to believe now. You gotta stay on message and hammer the talking points home. Rich Internet Applications. Apply directly to the forehead. Rich Internet Applications. Apply directly to the forehead. Rich Internet Applications. Apply directly to the forehead.
| Scott tags his posts as "Filed under: RIA, Rich Internet Application, Rich Interactive Application"
You can't draw readers to your posts thinking they're going to sit down with a nice venti non-fat vanilla latte extra whip and read about Rich Internet Applications and then pull a bait-and-switch and bust out a 1000 word post on Rich Interactive Applications. You must wipe Rich Internet Applications from the lexicon until it disappears from tag clouds everywhere. | Push
They're both penalized.
Ryan can't use the word 'interactive' in the same paragraph as RIA unless he's saying "RIA means Rich Internet Applications" not "Rich Interactive Applications".
Scott can't use the word "Internet" in his posts. |
| Attack Ads | You win a debate by going negative and attacking your opponent. If it's good enough for our government, it's good enough for the blogosphere.
From Ryan:
"Scott has decided that it’s now rich interactive application (though last year he was still using rich internet application). I wondered why Scott was pressing so hard because even other Microsoft staffers don’t push the interactive with the enthusiasm he does. Then I saw this and everything was explained."
It's just too subtle. I mean I gotta click all of these links, read more and draw my own conclusions. I'm a simple man, spell it out for me.
Something like "I just want to illustrate that there is an agenda behind the man"
| From Scott:
"[Ryan] later joined Adobe and has since been struggling to keep some kind of neutrality in the room, by lacing it with enough "RIA" abstracts to some how shift the focus away from subtle Adobe product placements?"
So what's the conclusion?
"I Say this not to offend or attack, but illustrate that there is an agenda behind the man :)"
There we go :) Spell it out for me, Ryan is in the pocket of Big RIA and can't be trusted.
| Barnes |
| Accuracy of Description | Does 'Internet' really describe what these applications are all about? What about RIA application that are only INTRANET based? Huge gaping whole in the nomenclature.
| Are any applications not interactive? Spreadsheets and word processors are what the majority of people would classify as applications. Applications typically have a user interface and therefore are interactive. I expect an application to be interactive. Considering an RIA to be a step forward because it's interactive doesn't really seem like progress or an evolution of the meaning of RIA.
| Push |
It's a tie and I've run out of comparison categories. In the end it doesn't matter. It's like DVD. Who even knows what that stands for? Everyone thinks the V is for "video", but it was originally for "versatile." If you say RIA, everyone knows what you are talking about regardless of the specific meaning of the words.
To both of them I say: That paper was written in 2002. It's almost 2008. Let's make some progress already. Spend your time coming up with something to describe the next trend in application development. Often times RIA is describing applications that are obfuscated by gratuitous animation and UI effects that are probably a step backward. A swirling animation and sound effect because I clicked a button isn't progress. I want something that describes the benefits. Like Rich Intuitive Effective Application (RIEA) or Rich User Centric Connected Application (RUCCA). That way, if someone builds a RIEA, I know it is probably a step forward in user experience. Although RIEA is a bit tough to say. Bring the RUCCAs!
Sent from my iPhone.