————————

Sorry to prolong the conversation….

Historically, “web applications” were what ColdFusion and later things like ASP and PHP did: business logic held on the server, and UI changes accomplished through a page-refresh. (And “The Web”, of course, is the web of interlinked hypertext documents viewable through a “web browser”, which is just one part of The Net.)

When Macromedia introduced the term “Rich Internet Application” in 2002, it was a way to distinguish the _combination_ of serverside and clientside processing, particularly with richer media and interaction types.
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2005/03/ria_definition.cfm

The term “RIA” started to fray after Firefox folks discovered that they too could refresh text on a page, without refreshing the entire page. Text and images aren’t all that “rich”, but there was a bandwagon effect, and even Microsoft later adopted the principles (although they added a definite “Not Invented Here” vibe in obfuscating the acronym).

If anything has “jumped the shark”, I think it may be the tendency to argue over labels (whether “RIA” or “open web” or whatever), rather than talking about observable traits and capabilities. For “I find that I can no longer use RIA to describe anything anymore”, try talking about what you’re actually doing, instead of choosing a label which you trust others will understand as you intend.

Or not. Your call. But “web applications” does have a particular meaning already, and the trademark trait is a full refresh of data, presentation, and logic after user interactions.

jd/adobe

For example, when RIA was defined in 2002 by Macromedia, desktop never played a roll in the equation, it was positioned to be the middle tier solution to a overthrow the desktop movement in many respects. Now Adobe are pitch the desktop agenda, which happens to coincide with AIR?

See how easy it was to spring that argument onto the agenda.. I don’t care about the answers or retort to the above, but the point i’m making is it’s a loosely coupled term that will continue to throw confusion into the room until we all collectively can agree on how to frame the conversation to our respective customers.

RIA for me is always and shall be a way of explaining the UX Platforms going forward. Expanding the acronymn is stupid, leave it compressed to three letters and my answer to RIA is very subtle and simple.

“..What you do with the UX Platform today will define what RIA looks like tomorrow..”

Key words “You Define RIA”.

-
Scott Barnes
Microsoft.

Here is my definition of a RIA which I think is short sweet and to the point.

“A Rich Internet Application runs inside a web browser, communicates asynchronously with server applications, and uses a plug-in or browser-supplied technologies in addition to or instead of HTML and CSS to provide a graphical user interface experience.”

Here is a defintion of a RIA platform:

A Rich Internet Application platform is a browser plug-in or built-in browser technology that enables the execution of a Rich Internet Application”.

Not as short as I would like but not too long either.

Most apps will intermix native OS and web based functionality. It often makes sense to incorporate functional dynamic server-side web pages within an app while also tapping into the desktop OS. So I would also have to say that “Web Applications” is not the best umbrella term either.

Do we need an umbrella term? We are all talking about the latest breed of software applications that take advantage of online and offline functionality.

Modern Apps!