I was reminded of the Web 1.0 reality when Jakob Nielsen recently published an article entitled Web 2.0 Can Be Dangerous.... This provocative piece comes at the Web 2.0 age in a different way than I am used to. In the article, Nielsen covers four elements of Web 2.0: Rich Internet Applications, User-Generated Content, Mashups, and an Advertising Based Business Model. I am going to be examining his arguments around the first element, Rich Internet Applications. Fellow blogger Tony MacDonell discussed this article from a design perspective, but I wanted to look at it from a developer's perspective.

Nielsen begins his article with the phrase, "AJAX, rich Internet UIs, mashups, communities, and user-generated content often add more complexity than they're worth. They also divert design resources and prove (once again) that what's hyped is rarely what's most profitable." This provoking statement helped my realize that Nielsen and I were coming at this topic from two drastically different perspectives. From this statement, Nielsen appears to view rich user experiences as "add-ons" as opposed to essential elements of an application.

Before I get carried away, I must say that Neilsen does have a point. There are rich internet applications that are confusing and poorly implemented. However, to ignore the successes of the properly implemented applications would be disastrous. As a developer, these over-generalizations seem to stifle any attempt at pushing technology beyond the status-quo. In another of Neilsen's articles, Ephemeral Web-Based Applications, Neilsen states:

"However, in the usability field, we've learned that more technical capabilities and a broader set of design options usually translate into more rope for hanging the users. Designers almost always use new features to excess, and it takes some time to discover the most appropriate way of applying new technology to suit human needs."

It seems that Nielsen is saying, "If you use these technologies, you will mess it up...so don't use them at all. It's the safe thing to do." This goes against every bit of developer that is in me. Technologies should not be avoided because they are more powerful. If we truly followed Neilsen's statement, you would be reading this with Mosaic.

While reading this article, I kept thinking, "If a company's site can truly benefit from a richer user experience without detracting from the usability, can they afford not to use it?" One of my main arguments with this article is the assumption that design and development with Web 2.0 features should be relegated to an afterthought. If you follow Nielsen's article, you can assign a percentage of "Web 2.0-ness" to your development cycle. As a developer, I realize that this should never be the way the process works, because this will lead to the type of poor usability that Nielsen is describing. For some sites, a richer user experience is essential to the target demographic. For other sites the target demographic could view it as cumbersome. Knowing where to use it is important, but making it an equal partner in the planning process is essential. If proper planning can be paired with honest usability assessment, compelling user experiences will be developed.

Nielsen does not cover any Flash or Flex concepts in Rich Internet Applications. Why? Nielsen answers this question at the beginning of the article. "Unlike some older technologies (notably, Flash and PDF), Web 2.0 ideas are not inherently bad for users." I found this statement to be quite surprising especially considering the role Flash and Flex have played in developing the next generation of web applications and rich user experiences. I immediately clicked on the link for "Flash" in the article to see that he is referencing an article that he wrote in October of 2000 (his infamous article Flash is 99% Bad). It amazes me that he still uses this article since a few things have changed with the Flash Player since then: Actionscript 2, Actionscript 3, Flex, and h.264 just to name a few. Apparently he is basing his opinion of current Flash and Flex applications on Flash Player 5, and that was four major releases ago.

Nielsen didn't write this article for developers, but as a developer it is very important to read and understand articles like Nielsen's. You might one day have to explain to your client (or boss) why a richer user experience is a good thing. Many of your potential clients read people like Nielsen in an effort to understand newer technologies and the potential role they will play in their business. Be ready to respond with real life examples of how rich user experiences have transformed the Internet both in experience and monetization.