Web Developers Are Stupid and Arrogant

The past couple of days has seen an amusing rant by PPK, that then turned into a retraction and call to action. The original rant included a condemnation of iPhone developers as being stupid and arrogant. Others have adequately refuted PPK, so I won't bother with any of that. His post made me realize that it is in fact web developers who are mostly commonly guilty of stupidity and arrogance. Here's what I mean.

It's easy to look at the world today and say that web applications have won. This is web developer arrogance. Stupidity is to think that web applications have won because web applications are superior to desktop applications. Smarter, but probably still arrogant developers would point to web applications as disruptive technologies. This involves admitting that web applications are inferior, but good enough, and present enough other "cheaper" advantages to compensate for their inferiority.

To understand why the "web apps have won" claim is dubious. There are definitely a lot of awesome web applications out there. Many of them were created back in the mid/late 90's, The "features" of these applications were the key to applications, not the user interface. Now these days, most of these web applications offer APIs/web services/RESTful interfaces/whatever you want to call them. In many cases it is possible to build desktop applications that tap into the same features as these web applications. However, this was certainly not the case 10-15 years ago.

So if APIs make it possible to build desktop apps that offer the same features as popular web applications, why haven't people switched? The first most obvious answer is inertia. If you are used to accessing Google or Amazon on the web, that's probably the way that you will always use it. Something else to consider is that for many web applications, it does not make sense for them to offer all of their features through APIs because it hurts their core business. This is most obviously true for advertising based companies like Google, Yahoo, and Facebook. Their web applications not only provide very useful features to end users, but they serve ads that make money for the companies. If all of their users switched to using desktop applications that only offered the features with no ads, then the companies would lose their revenue streams. Their business is connected at the hip with their UI, so it is in their best interest to make sure people use their UI -- which is a web application.

However, there are other very successful web applications whose main revenue does not come from ads. Their business is distinct from their UI. E-commerce companies like Amazon and my employer, eBay are obvious examples. For example, eBay offers trading APIs that provide almost all of the trading features of eBay. This is particularly true for selling on eBay. This makes sense, as eBay does not need a seller to use the eBay UI to sell something, as the UI is not what makes money for eBay. As a result, around 50% of all items for sale on eBay come through 3rd party applications built on top of the eBay trading APIs. The vast majority of these (especially the popular ones) are desktop applications. Give people a choice, and a lot of people choose desktop applications.

For another interesting example, just look at Twitter. This is a company that came into an existence after web APIs had become the norm. So Twitter has provided a comprehensive set of APIs since early in its existence. Further, they have not pursued an advertising model that would marry their web based UI to any revenue streams. So they have kept their APIs in sync with their features. For example, they recently added list and retweet features to their site, and added them to the APIs at the same time. As a result, there are a huge number of desktop applications for accessing Twitter. Indeed, Twitter says that 80% of their traffic is from APIs -- either desktop or mobile applications. For most Twitter users, there have always been feature-equivalent desktop alternatives to Twitter's web based UI, so many users chose desktop applications over the web.

Finally, let's look at one more example: existing desktop apps. There has been an incredible amount of money spent on creating web applications that provide similar functionality to traditional desktop applications: email, word processing, etc. Heck, Google has spent a lot in this space just by itself. These are useful applications, but it is rare for people to choose these apps over their desktop equivalents. In most cases these apps try to go the disruptive route, i.e. don't try to be as good, but good enough and cheaper. They have had little success so far. Of course, inertia is a valid argument here, too. The one case where there has been success is GMail. In my opinion its success is not because people like it's web UI over a desktop UI, or even that the web UI is "good enough" and cheaper. No, it's success is because it has offered innovative features over other web and desktop based alternatives: fast search, stars/labels, threaded conversations, etc. Even give all of that, many people still choose to use desktop clients to access their GMail (I'm definitely not one of them.) Anyways, once again it's the features, not the UI.

I am not going to sit here and claim that desktop wins over web all the time. I'm not arrogant or stupid enough to make such claims. However, be wary of claims that web apps win over desktop apps. One could argue that with the preponderance of APIs (especially spurned on by mobile apps) and the popping of the advertising based web 2.0 bubble, that the future will hold even more opportunities for desktop alternatives to web applications. Maybe web applications have jumped the shark. So don't put up with web developers who insist that web applications have won (especially if they try to extrapolate this flawed argument to the mobile world). They can go on and on about technology, standards, interoperability, etc. Just remind them that it's the users who matter, and when given a choice, the users do not always choose web applications. Time to polish off your MFC and Cocoa skills!

To Suggest or Not To Suggest

Ajax has been one of the most hyped technologies in recent memory. However, much of the hype is deserved. It really has changed the way we (web developers) build applications and the expectation of users. One of the archetypes of Ajax is the auto-suggest text box. I don't know who first came up with, but I first remember seeing it on Google. I think it was once a "special" version of the Google home page (Google Suggest?), but not it is standard:

It makes for a natural option on search text boxes. Here it is on some of the other search engines out there. Yahoo:

And on the search hotness, Bing:

Of course pure search engines are hardly the only sites that have search and thus have auto-suggest text boxes. It's pretty useful for ecommerce sites too...

As you can see, some sites have gotten creative with their suggestions. Here is another great example of that from Apple:

All of these examples are for search text boxes. If what you want is not suggested, you can still type it and the application will perform a search on it. A little more interesting example is on Facebook:

Here there is a "closed list" behind the suggest box: your friends. However, it is still a search box. If you type something that is not in the list, it will still perform a search that will return results. Of course, really all of the suggest boxes have a closed list behind them as well, but that list is probably much bigger than your list of friends on Facebook (unless you are Robert Scoble.) So the theme continues: there is a finite set of predetermined suggestions, but if you type in something not in that set, the application can still process your input.
Recently, I saw a different use for auto-suggest boxes: as a drop-in replacement for select/option boxes (a.k.a. drop-down box or combo box). This is fundamentally different than any of the examples above. It would be like the Facebook example, but with the limitation that your friends were the only valid input into the search box. In fact, Facebook has a scenario that is similar to this: tagging people in photos/videos:

However, even in this case, you can type the name of somebody who is not one of your friends. This is valid input. After all, maybe not everybody that you take pictures of has an account on Facebook. My kids are growing up fast, but my five year old son is not yet on Facebook...
I imagine that this pattern -- using auto-suggest box to replace a select/option box -- is used on websites out there. It seems like a reasonable thing to do to avoid a drop-down with a large number of choices, or a drop-down that is expensive to calculate and is often not used. However, it seems awkward, too. What do you do when a user types in something that is not in the box? I like to type, and I'm both reasonably fast at it and make enough spelling mistakes that this could be a common scenario from me.
Now I am no user experience expert. In fact, as a web developer, I would say that I am perhaps the least qualified person when it comes to judging user experience on the web. My knowledge makes me very forgiving of things that might be confusing to others, while it also makes me critical of things that others would not notice. So I am curious about other's people's experiences and opinions. Are there sites out there that use this pattern? Is it useful or awkward?

Google Docs To The Rescue

I was reading this post by Jeremy Zawodny, and it reminded me of my recent Mac Office 2004 meltdown. I went down a similar path. I had an Important Doc(!) that I needed to make some edits on for work. I had planned on doing the edits that morning, before I went in to the office. So I had some serious time pressures. I didn't know how long it would take me to solve the riddle dropped on to me by Apple Software Update. I actually tried loading the document into Pages, but it barfed on it (maybe because the doc had a table of contents?)

So like Jeremy, I fired up Google Docs. I uploaded the Important Doc there (hope nobody from Security is reading this, though the doc was intended for folks outside of my company.) It came through just fine. I made the edits I needed to make and saved it on Google Docs.

Then I went back to fixing Office, which I eventually did. I went in to work, opened the Google Docs version of my document, and manually merged in changes to the original. I would've just exported it as a Word Doc, but I was afraid of how it would handle the table of contents. So I manually merged and then updated the table of contents.