Partager via

Why I choose to use Interactive, not Internet in RIA.

  • Article

I get this a lot, and most think I'm just annoying Adobe by using the word "Interactive" instead of "Internet". I think I've already covered this discussion in fragments but thought I'd do it one last time to cement my reasons once and for all.

Internet for me isn't the right word, it's semantically incorrect and out of touch with today's actual "RIA" (Rich Interactive Applications) solutions. Typically, hardware vendors are looking at Rich Interactive Applications with new found respect, and monitoring both Microsoft and Adobe movements in this space.

When you couple hardware vendors along side most internal facing solutions, the word Internet starts to have a confusing message/meaning, as well.... Internet isn't really being used?

I also support the "Interactive" word based off my own personal experiences. Most of the RIA solutions I worked on prior to Microsoft never saw the light of day beyond the corporate firewall, they were essentially unified views over complex back end systems (insert SOA buzz wording here). In saying this, Internet never actually played a role - it did use the approach of what the Internet has, in terms of "web centric" methodologies but again, no actual Internet - maybe "Intranet" more so.

Point overall is that we at Microsoft have a compelling story around Software + Services, and if you take the time to read about it, the word Internet in RIA doesn't always apply. Interactive for me was the correct wording, as it doesn't confuse per say, in that If I were to approach a customer and state "I am building you a Rich Interactive Application" it takes on a whole new context to "I am building you a Rich Internet Application".

The world has changed since 2002 when Jeremy Alliare wrote a whitepaper around "Rich Internet Applications" and with change, comes upgrade and evolution. I predict Interactive will become more familiar as time goes by than Internet.

Why live in the past, when the future is much brighter.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    October 09, 2007
    http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=rich+internet+applications&word2=rich+interactive+applications nuff said ..

  • Anonymous
    October 09, 2007
    Cannot agree more, the new web phenomena is about interactivity and about how you put business or social practices into a simplistic form across the web.  It’s all about smart technology, developing applications that are intuitive and rich in functionalities. The more interactivity you perform with your users the more outcomes you can reach, projects such as Wikipedia would not be even heard of if it wasn’t for its ability to be moderated by the public.  However these days that's just a minor example. I look forward to the next couple of years as I believe we are going to hit another boom in the Internet industry with new technologies and information strategies.

  • Anonymous
    October 10, 2007
    (FYI, your page looks terrible in Firefox if you care ... I can't see the body of the text without selecting it). Rich implies interactive to me, so I'm not sure that will catch on as the 'right' word (rich an interactive are nearly synonyms in this case). What the acronym really should be: RWSDA = Rich Web Server Deployed/Delivered Applications :) Doesn't flow off the tounge nearly as well though.

  • Anonymous
    October 10, 2007
    As I've noted before, Interactive does fit in some ways but I have a question for you. How many times have you built an Ajax app and actually used XML? When you didn't use XML, did you still call it Ajax?

  • Anonymous
    October 10, 2007
    I agree. I vote for "interactive". Because RIA means new stage of software development for value proposition for me. for differentiation. Now, Internet and "Net" are more common than before, Jeremy's definition time.

  • Anonymous
    October 10, 2007
    Mark: Britney Spears is the most popular recording artist online at the moment in google.. doesn't mean she has talent :) (except if you're Chris Crocker - LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE, SHE'S NOT WELL RIGHT NOW) :P Point: Being popular is one thing, staying popular is another. John: Don't even get me started on AJAX.. (I came from the school of DHTML not AJAX..) Rich is the key word, Application is the definition and the I is the semantics ..

  • Anonymous
    October 10, 2007
    If Adobe were the first to create the term RIA for the Flex technology & refer to it as Rich Internet Application then I think trying to change it is disrespectful.  How would Microsoft feel if Adobe tried to call WPF as WWW Presentation Foundation?

  • Anonymous
    October 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 10, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 11, 2007
    Rich Interactive Applications (Or why Scott is right!) by Don Burnett Note this in an opinion piece..

  • Anonymous
    October 12, 2007
    Scott, rich and interactive are pretty much redundant. Application implies interactivity! The internet is where it's at. Face it. No one distributes multimedia on CDROMs or any hard media any more. Internet/intranet ... it does not matter. It's about non-desktop apps. It's about distribution of applications without installs or diskettes or other such nonsense in a way that is platform agnostic. It is rich because it has sound, animation and/or video. It is delivered over TCP/IP. And it does something (requiring interactivity) so it is an application. So Rich Internet Application is in fact broader in scope. Jeremy got it right!

  • Anonymous
    October 12, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 12, 2007
    What application bundled with Windows is not "interactive"?  We already have a term that works perfectly here, and diluting the meaning of RIA doesn't do anyone (aside possibly from Microsoft's FUD engine) any good. I'll be using RIA as an abbreviation for "interactive" right after the world starts referring to the Internet as the "information superhighway" again.  Ain't gonna happen.

  • Anonymous
    October 12, 2007
    Like it of not, it's reverse engineering of acronym. First there was a term (rich internet application), coined by Macromedia, then it became well known acronym. So, regarding your history in Adobe, it's disrespectful, stupid and ugly to do this. Since a lot of people respect you a lot (including me), I would forget about interactive... my 2 cents

  • Anonymous
    October 13, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 13, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 13, 2007
    I think Adobe's acronym is closer, although not perfect (because a minority of RIAs don't connect to the Internet, but most probably do). The fact is, EVERY application (desktop, web, mobile) is interactive otherwise it wouldn't be an application! It's redundant to say interactive again.

  • Anonymous
    October 13, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 13, 2007
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    October 13, 2007
    bah... response is best served in a post, instead of argumentive comments such as these: http://blogs.msdn.com/msmossyblog/archive/2007/10/14/rich-interactive-application-the-plot-thickens-adobe-s-not-happy.aspx I expect my blog stalker John C Bland II will have a followup ;P

  • Anonymous
    October 15, 2007
    WELP! I might as well chime in. :) Overtime a term becomes unique in its context, vs what it literally means. E.g. when browsers first came out they used the term "bookmarks". Back then the Web was originally a document distribution mechanism, so you literally were bookmarking a page. But now, when you say "bookmark it" - do you visualize that you're doing an electronic version of taking a piece of paper to mark a position in a book? It's become it's own term now, and the actual meaning of the words have no relevance. In fact, a bookmark is more synonymous with an address book. BUT... the verbiage never changed, it became the term. And this is what happened to RIA. When people hear "rich internet application", they no longer take the words literally but consider it a term in itself. So, long story short, I doubt the term will change. People are creatures of habit, and "Rich Internet Application" commands big time mind share.

  • Anonymous
    October 15, 2007

  • Most actually say "Favourites" now.. "Did you add it to your Favourites".
  • Define everyone? everyone = Adobe community or everyone = world wide? The one thing I learnt coming into Microsoft and meeting folks - OUTSIDE - the Adobe community is RIA is still a foreign term. I spend the first few minutes of most presentations educating folks on what RIA is. I'm just illustrating that despite the MXNA sphere we used to live in Tariq, the wider circles around the world really don't pay all that much attention to Adobe. You will note this as at MAX 2007 there were some - what i thought - heavy hitters in terms of PR drops (Thermo for eg). Got little attention from non-Adobe centric PR, what's that say? So.. RIA is still in baby steps, and ask Ryan - hardly anyone talks about RIA - Flex and Silverlight yes, but not about RIA...
  • Anonymous
    October 17, 2007
    Rich I Applications have generated a lot of interest as Microsoft & Adobe have focused attention...