Actually, there is something real here to distinguish between a "true" web app and an app-framework like AIR.AIR is more akin to Java Web Apps. Basically it is a virtual machine for interpreting non-native compiled applications into something the OS can present. The applications while very easy to update when you are connected to the internet, have an update behavior similar to a re-install. The screens don't update on use/pull from the network from what I've seen, but I'm not exactly sure why or if this is a rule. Even Flash apps that are in the browser can call dynamic SWFs (through Flex) to update the UI components per use as opposed to per "update". I just haven't seen AIR apps do this. But this notion of being installed, part of the registry (or its OS equivalents) is definitely a significant difference between AJAX apps (HTML, JS, XML and CSS[Let's also inlcude Silverlight & Flash apps in here too so long as they are in the browser].) and compiled web apps like AIR, Java and dare we include WPF?
One major difference between Browser resident apps and Air and JavaApps are the security parameters. Since it is installed it falls under that part of the controlled OS which can be blocked by Administrators, so the sandbox that Flash traditionally has for example is not really found (or externalized) in AIR apps (basically the same technology). Because Google mainly deals in Cloud-apps, they might not feel any great need to break this sandbox and thus the browser constraints from a security perspective are less important than their ability to update Gmail (e.g.) on monthly if not weekly basis with almost no visibility by the end-user except for the 'New Features' link at the top right corner. The deployment model is different and so is the re-deployment model and it is quite compelling. I still think that with a bit of ingenuity the addressing model can be better incorporated into the desktop experience. -- dave On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Luiz Ricardo Grzeca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Imho is a matter of expectation. > I`m not a big user of AIR apps, but those that I tested delivered a > slightly different experience than a regular webpage app. Some of the UI > elements (note that AIR`s default color is black/dark grey, instead of a > plain white - empty - page), the apps flow, plus their size (in bytes) makes > them fill more like an installed application that turns to be connected to > some web resource. Add the possibility to control hardware, local file > system access, network detection and the other features and you`ll start to > feel like using a desktop, but connected, app, thus, expecting a desktop > behavior, while with prism, and maybe chrome (I`m a mac user, so i haven`t > tested it yet) you still expects a webapp behavior. > > wyt? > > Ricardo > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:59:37 -0400 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] A New Browser: Google Chrome > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi Luiz, I see your point and feel similarly.But then why does AIR work? > Its not a rhetorical question, BTW. I mean from an IxD perspective isn't AIR > just the same thing, except running HTML it is running Flash, which for all > intent and purposes really just an web-app? > > -- dave > > ------------------------------ > Conheça já o Windows Live Spaces, o site de relacionamentos do Messenger! Crie > já o seu! <http://www.amigosdomessenger.com.br> > -- David Malouf http://synapticburn.com/ http://ixda.org/ http://motorola.com/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
