There's an interesting discussion this morning on a few tech focused blogs about whether or not rich Internet applications matter. Anne Zelenka posted her thoughts at Web Worker Daily to get the discussion going, and many people have chimed in, including Ryan Stewart.

I think part of the problem is defining what exactly qualifies as a rich Internet application. I don't think there's a consistent definition of what constitutes an RIA. Some of the comments to Anne's post focus on Ajax, and adding Ajax functionality to existing websites. To me, those aren't rich Internet applications: they're websites with useability improvements added through the use of technology (mostly Ajax). I wouldn't classify YouTube as a rich Internet application - its a website that uses Flash to display content, but its not an application. Gmail, on the other hand, is definitely an RIA - its an application that would have been delivered as a desktop app not too long ago.

Wikipedia defines RIAs as "Web applications that have the features and functionality of traditional desktop applications. RIAs typically transfer the processing necessary for the user interface to the Web client but keep the bulk of the data (i.e., maintaining the state of the program, the data etc) back on the application server."

When thought of in that form, RIAs have a number of advantages over traditional desktop applications, and these reasons form the basis for why RIAs are important. From a business perspective, a better user experience has been shown to increase conversion rates, increase spending amount and provide a higher return on investment. Rich Internet applications accomplish this for web applications focused on e-commerce and monetary transactions. They're important from a business perspective.

From a developer perspective, RIA development can lead to lower costs and quicker time to development. Fewer calls back to the server results in less data going over the wire, reducing bandwidth costs, and (if done properly), simplifying development. I've given examples of developers doing this in my talk on rich Internet applications at previous PHP conferences. Note that these benefits can apply not only to rich Internet applications, but any website that uses Ajax or Flash to improve the user experience. Macrumors saved something like 160 GB of data by moving to an Ajax system to refresh comments during one of Steve Jobs' keynotes.

From an end user experience, RIAs are an improvement. People no longer need to worry about installing applications and keeping software up to date. This is a major problem for many people - take a look at my parents or grandparents to see how much trouble it is to install an application and keep it up to date. The advertising revenue model has also reduced costs considerably, allowing people access to high quality software that may have been out of reach a few years ago with the traditional shrinkwrap software model.

One area that concerns me these days with respect to RIAs is the lack of consistent design patterns. The benefits of desktop applications come from the guidelines that have been developed for the two most popular platforms (Windows, Mac OS). The applications that run on those platforms have consistent menu placements and consistent behaviour (not always, but they're pretty good). The free form nature of the web and the lack of design patterns for RIAs has given us applications that are completely different and hard for people to learn. That's one thing I think that Adobe could play more of a leading role in.

RIAs are still a new concept, and are maturing as any other technology. Ryan points this out by comparing RIAs now to Super Mario Bros. As they mature in technology, they'll enable new applications to be delivered as RIAs, even some applications that today we couldn't imagine in the browser. Anne uses Photoshop as an example in her post. How much longer before Fauxto reaches that level of functionality? If Super Mario is any indication, its not going to be too long.