Monday, January 21, 2008

Web UIs vs Rich Client UIs

Nearly every application has a User Interface of some sort. It could be a configuration file, a command line, a Windows Form, or a web site. A software application's User Interface is the part of the software that effects the user the most because its the only part that the user has direct interaction with. Unfortunately the UI is also the hardest part of the software to quantify and measure, so its hard to determine if one UI is better than another. And further complicating it, a user might like a UI that they don't work as efficiently with and hate a UI that actually helps them get their work done faster. Its very subjective.

Before I go any further I ought to point out that having a good UI doesn't mean you have good software. The primary function of software is to fullfill a user's goals.

In any event User Interfaces are clearly important. So where do you find the best user interfaces? I think most people these days would say that Rich Client UIs are the best. They're more consistent, easier to develop, have shortcut keys and menu bars and toolbars, and have fast response times. Meanwhile, web apps are all different and inconsistent, are very difficult to develop, arn't as easy to interact with, and have high latency.

At least, that's what everyone seems to be thinking. Even in articles where very smart people like Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood are discussing how web apps are going to replace desktop apps you can still see those underlying assumptions.

Of course, AJAX is changing things. Now we have Gmail and Google Calendar and 30 boxes and Jott and Remember the Milk and Fog Bugz and Scrybe and Google Maps and Yahoo Maps...

Maybe its just me, but I like the UIs of these web apps better than what Outlook has to offer, or iCal, or Thunderbird (and Sunbird) or TFS or Microsoft's Streets and Trips. Why? It comes down to three reasons:
  1. They are more dynamic
  2. They are easier to read and understand
  3. They are prettier

By more dynamic I mean, when you hover over something, information is displayed in a nearby panel. Or when you click a row, it expands to show you more detailed information and give you links to perform actions. Also, the display of data is usually customized so that, for example, if you're seeing a list of todos and one is longer than another they both take up whatever space they need making them easier to read. In a rich client they're typically forced into the same amount of space in some kind of Grid control.

They're easier to read and understand because everything isn't displayed in static grids and panels. Instead, it's displayed more how you'd display the same information in a report. That is, it's laid out like a Flow Document. This makes it easy for your eye to find the information you're looking for and remember where to find that information in the future. Also, things tend to be broken into display and editing in two different interfaces. This way you're not staring at a grid of labels and text boxes, some with data in them and some without.

And finally, they're prettier. They have color and logos and icons. Most rich client apps are either a sea of grey, or washed out white, with black text over top.

So from a strictly functional standpoint, these Web UIs are better than any Rich Client UIs I've used to accomplish the same tasks. Now when you add in cross browser compatibility problems and the steep development cost and the potential for high latency things become less attractive. And this inevitable leads me to ask, "Why don't my Rich Client Applications behave as well as these Web Applications?"

The answer is its actually harder to do this kind of stuff with the existing frameworks in Rich Clients. For example, there is nothing in Windows Forms which will let you create an html style layout. You can simulate it by creating a custom control for every item and state you may need to display and throw those into a Flow Layout Panel, but the overhead involved in developing this and the performance costs when it's completed makes it too prohibitive. Ultimately you'd have to just perform your own custom GDI drawing or use an HTML rendering engine and write in HTML. Neither of these is really a very good solution.

WPF may offer a solution to this. I haven't actually done any development in it yet, though I've done plenty of reading. For now, I'm hopeful and looking forward to finding some free time to experiment with it.

Ideally I'd love to see Rich Client applications which took a more flow document layout style approach like you see on the web as well as more dynamic interfaces capable of showing the most pertinent information in the "report" view and allowing the details to be displayed through a web style progressive disclosure model.

And I'd love to see tab controls replaced with web style Navigation bars that toggle the "report page" or navigate to "anchors" in the page. These are simple but powerful UI patterns that you rarely see in a Rich Client environment.

How do you edit data? Either allow users to click and open a pop up to perform edit tasks (like Properties Windows) or dynamically display an edit control when the user clicks on the read only data. These two patterns both allow you to perform very simple spot editing or display more complicated edit UI when needed.

The fun part of all this is that none of it is new. You use it every day when you browse the web. Its time designers started incorporating the good ideas from the web in Rich Clients. And its time Rich Clients were developed with a Framework that makes dynamic UIs possible!

1 comment:

  1. Im not gonna lie. When i saw this topic in my google reader i though for sure "oh here comes kevin lamenting the existance of web apps and how rich clients are obviously superior in every way." You totally threw me off.

    I agree with you in almost every facet. I also think theres an odd element to the people who value intuitive user friendly web design that makes those apps that you mentioned as good as they are.

    I love the web as a app development platform, and i think it has a lot of limitations which you brought up, but i see it as having so much potential and i think most (if not all of those things) can be overcome through creativity and finding solutions to problems we havent even seen yet.

    As for WPF, i havent played with it yet either but a friend of mine has. He used to be an ASP.NET guy and now hes doing WPF and ill tell you what, he described it to me as having the whole web mentaility of markup and design and that inherant flexability with the benifits of a client app. Basically what you were hoping for.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.