RSS
Twitter
Should The Web Experience Be More Like The Desktop Experience?
from the good-or-bad? dept
There have been many people who haven't been thrilled with the state of the user experience within the browser. After all, as simple as it is, it also has quite a few limitations - especially compared to the typical "windows" (lower case) interface that people are used to on the desktop. Still, this article at IT-Analysis seems positively stunned that some company has worked out a way to build a windows-like interface in the browser. They even point to a (somewhat buggy) demo shopping site, that basically shows how a company could create a shopping site that feels more like a traditional client-server application using windows and the ability to drag and drop products into a shopping cart. It's an interesting interface, but all it really does is move that traditional interface into the browser. Plenty of other companies, like Macromedia and Laszlo Systems, have been working on other interactive interfaces within the browser as well - so this specific offering doesn't seem all that new or different. Others have recreated traditional applications (such as office suites) within the browser as well - so the idea of "drag and drop" within the browser isn't really that new or exciting. Some web traditionalists have problems with many of these systems because they "break the web." There are benefits to having things like standard URLs that you can send to other people and a traditional hyperlink system. More advanced interfaces are sometimes nice, but, so far, many of them seem to cause more problems than they solve. For example, the sample shopping site above had some confusing buttons at the bottom, and once I clicked on one, the whole window closed and now the page refuses to reload. Not the most user-friendly shopping experience.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Yawn
They've got it exactly backwards. The interesting thing isn't a browser that behaves like a desktop, but a desktop that behaves like a browser. And I'm not talking about an animated gif for a background.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
The plain browser as a user interface is barely better than the old green mainframe terminals that I used to use.
I worked on a downloadable app (www.TVtopia.com) that used the all the web protocols, but had a native user interface. The company didn't make it, but I think we will see lots more apps like it. IT still isn't clear, in spite of Macromedia and Lazlos's valiant efforts, what the optimal platform for writing those kinds of apps is.
The best version of a user interface implemented in a browser that I have seen is http://www.oddpost.com's IE only web mail client, written with tons of Javascript and DOM. Using it is almost like using a desktop email client. Much better than gmail's UI, IMHO.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
And there you have it - IE only. Just like the browser interface to Exchange which degrades to almost unusable when you don't use IE.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
It is certainly unfair to claim that the interface is "IE only" - or that "it degrades to almost unsuasable when you don't use IE".
As a developer of RecipeXperience, I use Linux+Eclipse+Mozilla. I only switch to Windows when I need to actively develop and test the Internet Explorer DHTML UI. The availability of a Java Swing based interface for RecipeXperience provides high-levels of UI functionality on all platforms which support Java Swing (which to my knowlege includes at least Linux, Solaris and Windows).
RecipeXperience allows developers to write their application inteface code just once, using a platform neutral API. This interface is then automatically targetted to clients either as Java, flat HTML or dynamic HTML. The development time saved is huge and often users do get an opportunity to use the interface which suits them best. For example, a user with visual impairment who uses Internet Explorer may choose the simplest interface for the purpose of using assistive technologies (screen readers etc.).
I feel that the range of platforms is already quite broad given the nature of the technology and though we are always interested in supporting more I'm sure you will recognise the commercial limitations which exist. For example, as a Mozilla user I would be very interested in supporting XUL (as an example) but at this time can't justify such support commercially.
Tom Gibara
Senior Technical Manager
RecipeXperience
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Personally I don't see what one has to do with the other.
Why should the browser be more like the desktop? Or be more like anything? Web designers have some control and can make UIs that are interesting and work with the context of their sites.
Browsers themselves are becoming so customizable that I'm surprised more options aren't out there (I'm not talking about that bug ridden IE filth) and from what I see of plugins for Mozilla et al..those options are coming.
As for the desktop, I can already customize it almost infinitely and I don't see why it has to be like the "browser experience"...
Of course...I don't use windows...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
It is not the intention of RecipeXperience to make browsers 'more like the desktop'. You are quite right - browsers and desktops are distinct concepts.
RecipeXperience is seeking to address the following problem: What do I use as a developer if I need to produce a multi-user application which would benefit from desktop functionality but needs to remain accessible to all users?
The only medium for disseminating such an interface at this time is the browser. Web browser functionality is available (if only at a basic level) on all devices. The RecipeXperience desktop operates within the web browser because it's the most egalitarian medium - not because there's something wrong with browsers.
Tom Gibara
Senior Technical Manager
RecipeXperience
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment