Jesse James Garrett, author of The Elements of User Experience, has been touting a Microsoft developed technology as the next big thing. Garrett says, “The gap between the experiences we can provide on the desktop and the experiences users can get online is closing, thanks to a new Web application framework we call Ajax.” For those interested, you can find the quote in this article. Ajax, which stands for ‘asynchronous Java and XML’, enables the development of better web applications. Using Ajax, communication between the server & client is no longer dependant upon the User. Information is updated without the generally required User mouse-click. The cost associated with implementing AJAX is relatively small when there is relatively little data-flow between client and server. As the amount of data-flow increases, the complexity increases disproportionately.
While the word ‘Ajax’ might carry with it a sense of shiny sparkly cleanliness, one finds that it’s been around for a while. Ajax will not result in vastly improved web applications. When compared with HTML, Ajax’s advantage can be distilled to a single trait, resolution. Because information can be transmitted asynchronously, software designers may develop and implement more complex models of various processes and objects. In essence however, such an approach saddles designers and coders with complexity that quickly demonstrates the law of diminishing returns. One will find that developers use Ajax to improve data transfer or aggregation and to provide flourishes to websites.
One sees an opposed philosophy behind the development of Ruby on Rails (”RoR”). RoR was created to simplify the job of the developer. While Ajax is a mix of various languages and protocols, RoR is a single language with which one may create web applications. RoR is focused on eliminating repetitive coding and minimizing development time. Again, we can reduce the power of RoR to a single attribute….RESOLUTION. Because RoR provides a static framework within which one develops applications, one is limited to the resolution provided by such a frame. While it might be that rewriting code is a waste of time, RoR eliminates the opportunity to change the scope of the model upon which RoR is founded.
Both Ajax and RoR are associated with Web 2.0, yet they lie on opposed ends of the development complexity spectrum. If the concept that is Web 2.0 is to be coherent and recognizable, it will not be all things to all people. One must conclude that web 2.0 is not centered primarily by the interests of web developers. Those who attempt to cater first to the developers will soon find they’ve missed the point of departure.
Web 2.0 will flourish because there will be a framework that first considers the User’s experience from the point of view of the User. Web 2.0 is about the User. Web 2.0 is not about the User as seen through the eyes of the developer, the producer, or the publisher. The User isn’t defined as anyone who’s using a particular piece of software. The User is an individual PERSON. By modeling personhood, one not only develops web applications that are best suited to the User experience, one inherently considers the role of the Designer, the Developer and the Producer.
leave a reply
translate it
Ehm, I’m sorry, but I don’t really get the idea you understand completely what web 2.0, ajax and RoR are.
You’re talking about web 2.0 as a framework and RoR and ajax as competiting alternatives. Well, the fact is that RoR is a framework and uses AJAX to get a better user experience - and with the improved user experience, web 2.0 comes along.
You say as well that with RoR, you’re limited to what is possible with RoR. Again, I would like to prove you wrong. RoR is very extendable, adaptable and agile. With other words: if you don’t like the perticular way it handles something, you can change it. If you want to use another javascript library for the AJAX fucntionality, you change it. So you’re not bound to what the framework dictates, it’s made to be edited to suit the needs of the developer.
Greetings Okke, I agree with you that Ajax and RoR aren’t ‘competing’ in the sense that a developer must choose one or the other. Where they compete is in regards to the philosophies upon which they’re constructed.
You say that RoR is ‘very extendable, adaptable and agile.’ One only need consider the name ‘Ruby-on-Rails’ to get the idea that this framework sacrifices flexibility in exchange for accelerated development timefames. More specifically, RoR is an implementation of a Model-View-Controller (MVC) architecture. As flexible as RoR is, it is flexible only within MVC. In fact, RoR inherits the limitations of Ruby AND the limitations imposed by the MVC architecture.
RoR looks great compared with what’s come before it. However, don’t let that lull you into a false sense that RoR represents the best that we’re capable of as designers and developers. This reminds me of a story…
The devil and a friend were walking along a sidewalk. A man walking aways in front of them saw something on the ground and stopped to pick it up before continuing on his way. The devil started quietly laughing and his friend asked him what he found funny. The devil replied, “That man has just found a piece of the truth and has mistaken it for the whole truth,” The devil chuckled. “Having found what he believes to be the whole truth, he’ll now stop searching alltogether.”
~Kenneth
One finds that when reading this post that one realizes that the author is not quite understanding what said author is discussing. One then meanders on one’s way to find something more interesting.
It’s frustrating isn’t it, Kip? If I don’t understand what I’m talking about, then I’m wasting everyone’s time, including mine!
If I do understand what I’m discussing, why not be more to the point!? We all enjoy meandering (some more than others) until something grabs our attention, something novel that excites our senses and gets our neurons popping. Attention rapidly focuses and we find some measure of pleasure as our experience of this object or situation establishes its place in our understanding.
Such a meandering approach presents a low up front cost - the thing itself attracts your interest and stirs your curiosity. At the same time, the superficial nature of this type of experience tends to provide only moderate payoffs in terms of substantial new understandings. Therefore, meandering is a low risk, energy conserving way to approach the world.
Here’s where things heat up a bit. I’m not advocating that people head out into the world with the intention of learning things (arriving at understandings) that require great up front cost without some assurance that a commensurate payoff exists. One of the principle functions of teachers and mentors is to help ensure such.
Stop meandering for a bit, turn around and read the post again. If it’s frustrating, great! Use it to FOCUS! You might not understand it after reading it again, but there’s a damn good chance that you’ll have a comment or a question that will move this process forward. Then I’ll reply and other people will find in reading our DISCUSSION they have a better understanding of it. Someone else may even provide some additional comment, or ask a question.
Before you know it, BAM! We arrive at some significant understanding!
It’s takes more effort up front, but there’s a big payoff, and given that there really is something there to understand, the only risk is that people will lack the determination to persevere in such an endeavor. I took on that risk the moment I began sincerely to consider how I might respond to your comment. I’m an optimist.