Monday, November 17, 2008
Fixing the Web, Part I
We've made major progress on the web since 2005 and the rise of Ajax. JavaScript toolkits like JQuery, Dojo, and YUI have expanded what we can do with web browsers and increased our productivity, while dynamic high-profile web sites have legitimized using DHTML and Ajax. The rise of web browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Chrome have done a huge amount to help revive the web and web applications. Developers such as all of us in the Ajax community have shown that it's possible to do things with the web cross-browser that no one expected, including Comet, cross-browser vector graphics, and more.
However, even with all of the amazing work the last few years, the web has some very serious foundational issues that we need to solve or else it's game over. In the next year or two we will begin to hit the limit of what we can achieve with clever JavaScript tricks (I've literally made a career out of this browser black magic). As an industry we've put off having to solve some very serious issues. Unfortunately the bill is going to come due soon, and if we don't take action, solve these issues, and push the web in a new direction some other possibly much less open technology will take over the bulk of new development.
We need to do something about this. This blog post is part of a new, semi-regular series called Fixing the Web. The goal is to highlight these issues, identify potential solutions, and have a dialogue. I don't claim to have the answers for the situation we are in. However, I do know this -- if there is any community that potentially has what it takes to solve these issues I believe it's the Ajax and JavaScript communities, which is why this is a perfect place to have these discussions.
To start, I see four areas that are broken that must be fixed:
1) Make developing for the web much easier and more powerful. There are gaping holes in the web that need to be fixed. Examples include:
2) Solve the standards problem. The web standards process is broken. There is a real disconnect between developers needs and the W3C's standard setting process, creating a dangerous power and leadership vacuum. We need to come up with better mechanisms for creating standards, as well as organizations that can help manage them.
3) Solve the distribution problem. Both Gears and Yahoo BrowserPlus are attempting to address this area. There is just a sheer mass of inertia on the web. It doesn't matter if you have the most amazing standards, developer tools, etc. if they aren't in enough places to do anything. This problem can also be re-framed as 'Solve the Internet Explorer problem', because the other browsers are pretty damned good at getting things out there -- IE is the mass that blocks any positive forward web progress. IE 8 is a start, but at the end of the day it's not doing enough. This is also linked to how hard it is to do web development, since you have to be a wizard to know the potholes or do crazy workarounds.
4) Solve the innovation problem -- There is a saying in politics that you create ideas so that you can draw on them when there is a crises, such as we are seeing now. Much of the innovation on the web has surprisingly happened by Flash, with some by Silverlight lately -- when we get excited about being able to do video on the web, which is great, that's a pretty sad indictment of the open web 'owning' the future. We've got to have better mechanisms for stamping out potential futures and innovation that can then compete, the successful ones turning into standards. Mozilla has done a good job of this with the web "concept cars" type work they've been doing.
What do you see as the major areas we need to address? Expect to see the issues above, and others, discussed in future blog posts in this series.
[Disclaimer: I work for Google. However, this opinion piece is my own and does not represent an official stand of Googles]
However, even with all of the amazing work the last few years, the web has some very serious foundational issues that we need to solve or else it's game over. In the next year or two we will begin to hit the limit of what we can achieve with clever JavaScript tricks (I've literally made a career out of this browser black magic). As an industry we've put off having to solve some very serious issues. Unfortunately the bill is going to come due soon, and if we don't take action, solve these issues, and push the web in a new direction some other possibly much less open technology will take over the bulk of new development.
We need to do something about this. This blog post is part of a new, semi-regular series called Fixing the Web. The goal is to highlight these issues, identify potential solutions, and have a dialogue. I don't claim to have the answers for the situation we are in. However, I do know this -- if there is any community that potentially has what it takes to solve these issues I believe it's the Ajax and JavaScript communities, which is why this is a perfect place to have these discussions.
To start, I see four areas that are broken that must be fixed:
1) Make developing for the web much easier and more powerful. There are gaping holes in the web that need to be fixed. Examples include:
- Layout - layout needs to be _much_ easier. We need real, kick-ass, drop dead simple layout. You shouldn't have to be a CSS wizard to get multiple columns, for example.
- JavaScript++ - JavaScript needs to evolve for programming in the large and medium.
- Bling - Browser's need much better native multimedia support, real vector graphics, and _fast_ (really fast) animation
- Tooling - We need much better open web tooling support, such as IDEs.
2) Solve the standards problem. The web standards process is broken. There is a real disconnect between developers needs and the W3C's standard setting process, creating a dangerous power and leadership vacuum. We need to come up with better mechanisms for creating standards, as well as organizations that can help manage them.
3) Solve the distribution problem. Both Gears and Yahoo BrowserPlus are attempting to address this area. There is just a sheer mass of inertia on the web. It doesn't matter if you have the most amazing standards, developer tools, etc. if they aren't in enough places to do anything. This problem can also be re-framed as 'Solve the Internet Explorer problem', because the other browsers are pretty damned good at getting things out there -- IE is the mass that blocks any positive forward web progress. IE 8 is a start, but at the end of the day it's not doing enough. This is also linked to how hard it is to do web development, since you have to be a wizard to know the potholes or do crazy workarounds.
4) Solve the innovation problem -- There is a saying in politics that you create ideas so that you can draw on them when there is a crises, such as we are seeing now. Much of the innovation on the web has surprisingly happened by Flash, with some by Silverlight lately -- when we get excited about being able to do video on the web, which is great, that's a pretty sad indictment of the open web 'owning' the future. We've got to have better mechanisms for stamping out potential futures and innovation that can then compete, the successful ones turning into standards. Mozilla has done a good job of this with the web "concept cars" type work they've been doing.
What do you see as the major areas we need to address? Expect to see the issues above, and others, discussed in future blog posts in this series.
[Disclaimer: I work for Google. However, this opinion piece is my own and does not represent an official stand of Googles]
Labels: ajax, fixtheweb, open web
How Flash Can Integrate With The Open Web
[Big giant usual disclaimer: These are my own thoughts and opinions and not those of my employer]
Dion just put up a great post on how Adobe can join the Open Web by open sourcing Flash. I agree with him, and just wanted to add to the conversation a bit.
I've actually been turning this idea around in my head as well. It might surprise you since I'm an Open Web Advocate, but I like Flash. I've always tried to be non-ideological in my work. Flash has done good things and created a great deal of innovation. Adobe (and Macromedia before it) has always been good about evolving Flash forward, including making ActionScript more like JavaScript, embracing markup language development, open sourcing Flex, and more. I'd like to see Flash continue to evolve into being a core part of the Open Web. This would be good for Flash and good for the Open Web.
As Dion points out open sourcing Flash is one big part of making this happen, but another huge aspect would be to have Flash and Flex integrate better into the web stack and be less of a 'black box' on the screen.
Here are some suggested ways to make Flash & Flex more a part of the Open Web -- these are just suggestions. The important point is to integrate Flash and Flex more deeply into how the Open Web works:
Directly push Flex and ActionScript to the browser and Embrace View Source
Right now Flex and Flash work by compiling everything you do down into a small, binary SWF file. This has some obvious advantages, mainly that it allows the Flash player to be simpler and not have a full interpreter in it (for example, ActionScript doesn't support eval because there's no way to dynamically execute script at runtime). Back when bandwidth was more constrained it also had the advantage of smaller file sizes and less latency when fetching multiple files.
These were good reasons for their time. However, things have changed. We now have much higher broadband penetration, and the Flash player doesn't have as strong size constraints (though I do agree you want to make sure the size stays small in general -- I've always liked the size constraint Adobe has around their player versus Sun with the Java VM).
At this point, Flash should start working like the web itself: Flex should be pushed right down to the browser and rendered there, with the ActionScript fetched just like SCRIPT tags. In addition, View Source should be on automatically and hooked into the browser's View Source. If I browse to an MXML page and do View Source, I'll see the MXML Flex markup for it. I could also then see the mx:Script tags and view their source as well.
Why this is good:
Flash should implement the HTML 5 History interface and should deeply integrate with the browser's bookmarking and history. I know there were some earlier efforts to have Flash have bookmarking machinery, but its buggy, no one uses it, and it doesn't work very well.
Don't Be Afraid of the Browser
AIR is really cool when you want to build desktop applications using web technologies. However, the browser doesn't need to be routed around as if it were a source of damage, which is what AIR essentially does. Personally I'd rather see Flash deeply embrace the browser itself and expand what can be done there, similar to Gears -- I want the web to grow into the desktop, not have the desktop grow into the web. Flash developers generally see the strengths of the browser as weaknesses, when they shouldn't:
Hyperlinks Are Your Friend
Hyperlinks are essential to the web, navigation, and searching -- it's the Hypertext in HyperText Markup Language (HTML) after all. Flash should embrace linking into the resources that are internally present (such as targeting particular parts of an MXML document). I'm not saying XLink is the way to do this, but perhaps one could mix in an attribute onto an MXML element (or the equivalent of a div and span in some inline text in an MXML element) that makes the element a targetable anchor. Or even better, just automatically make everything targetable:
http://example.com/my_flex_app.mxml#find(Some Text)
The line above would simply find the first occurrence of 'Some Text'. If there are multiple occurrences you can simply choose which one, starting at 1 rather than 0; for example, to target the second occurrence of 'Some Text', you would do the following:
http://example.com/my_flex_app.mxml#find(Some Text)[2]
This is good for search engines, for SEO, and for users. Again, this is just like View Source -- make things linkable by default.
Embrace REST and Readable Remoting Protocols
The Flash remoting protocols are interesting and a nifty piece of engineering. You've got AMF which is essentially a binary RPC protocol, and then you have things like RTMP which lie above this and which can efficiently intermix multiple streams of multimedia to ensure that no channel get's 'starved' if you are doing multiple collaboration or mixing streams together -- nice work. Again, however, this is a case where local efficiency is the enemy of broad adoption. Binary protocols make sense in some cases, but its much better to sacrifice the efficiency of binary protocols for the integration possibilities of textual protocols.
Flash should embrace REST (and if it must have RPC, just do XML-RPC) and layer higher-level protocols above these as HTTP-based protocols. Yes, you're going to sacrifice some efficiency, but it's just much easier for someone to throw up a PHP or Rails based backend that can setup things through REST, spit out some XML-RPC, or do multimedia through something like Jabber.
Embrace SVG
Yes, I know you are creating your own vector-graphics markup language, and I know you just published a long editorial on why SVG wasn't perfect for your needs. I hear what you're saying, but reading through the list it seems like minor errata rather than really good reasons. It seems more like the developer really wanted to make their own thing -- I understand that, it's always more fun to roll your own thing.
SVG's not perfect -- standards never are (and neither was TCP/IP or SMTP versus the competition, BTW). But SVG is actually pretty damn good, and the baseline of support has gotten strong the last year across Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera. In the next two years I think we'll start to see SVG emerge as a real tool in most web developers toolkits -- Flash should embrace this. Go ahead and add what you need to it (innovation is okay), but support the core standard itself. It's going to be a little different than the other MXML it's mixed in with, one of the issues you raise, but global systems like the web tend to sacrifice some internal consistency in support of evolvability.
Bonus point: Support the Canvas tag as well, including Web fonts (TrueType, not EOT).
Integrate with HTML and CSS
Yes, HTML has been sitting on its butt for awhile, but things like HTML 5 are starting to make things exciting again, and the work Safari and Firefox have been doing around CSS Effects are really powerful (and really easy for developers to use).
This can be a two-way integration. MXML has some cool ideas around layout, for example, that would be nice to push into HTML, while it would be pretty nifty to start being able to mix HTML and MXML together in some way and styling MXML using CSS. This might also include having one of the open source browsers integrate MXML and aspects of Flash into the layout engine itself. More thought needs to happen around the best way for these particular technologies to integrate.
Make Friends with HTML 5 Video
It would be pretty cool to simply open source and patent-unencumber the FLV format into HTML 5 as the default codec for the HTML 5 Video tag. I might be dreaming (and a bit off about FLV -- I don't know it's technical details deeply), but it never hurts to dream...
Support Both Documents and Applications
The web is good at documents (and with the addition of Ajax relatively okay at applications), while Flash is okay with applications, and not good at documents. The interesting thing about the web is it's actually a spectrum:
Documents <------- Hybrids -------> Applications
What we really need is a technology that can easily adapt along this continuum, creating documents, hybrids like Facebook and MySpace, all the web to full-blown appliations like Gmail and Buzzword, perhaps merging the best ideas of Flash and the HTML web stack. Mark this one as a research area.
Start Working with the W3C and IETF (and/or the Open Web Foundation)
Yeah, I know, working with standards bodies can be a pain. However, it would be pretty cool to have alot of the work happening in Flash flowing into the W3C and IETF (which I know has been happening around Adobe's ActionScript work, but not other aspects). If you want a lighter weight process, you should check out the Open Web Foundation's way of working, which is based on things like OpenID, OAuth, etc. which are a bit more pragmatic than the standards bodies we have today.
Conclusion
At the end of the day Adobe is a tools company, a really damn good tools company actually. Doing the above should allow Adobe to continue creating powerful tools that help authors and content creators while expanding the size of the market they can target.
The above list was just a suggestion to kick things off. The real focus is on having Flash integrate into the web stack better itself (and evolving both Flash and the web stack themselves into the future).
How do you see this happening?
Dion just put up a great post on how Adobe can join the Open Web by open sourcing Flash. I agree with him, and just wanted to add to the conversation a bit.
I've actually been turning this idea around in my head as well. It might surprise you since I'm an Open Web Advocate, but I like Flash. I've always tried to be non-ideological in my work. Flash has done good things and created a great deal of innovation. Adobe (and Macromedia before it) has always been good about evolving Flash forward, including making ActionScript more like JavaScript, embracing markup language development, open sourcing Flex, and more. I'd like to see Flash continue to evolve into being a core part of the Open Web. This would be good for Flash and good for the Open Web.
As Dion points out open sourcing Flash is one big part of making this happen, but another huge aspect would be to have Flash and Flex integrate better into the web stack and be less of a 'black box' on the screen.
Here are some suggested ways to make Flash & Flex more a part of the Open Web -- these are just suggestions. The important point is to integrate Flash and Flex more deeply into how the Open Web works:
- Cross-Platform Standards
- No Vendor Lock-in
- Anyone Can Innovate
- Powerful, Universal Clients
- Open Source Implementations
- Mashable, Searchable, and Integrated
Directly push Flex and ActionScript to the browser and Embrace View Source
Right now Flex and Flash work by compiling everything you do down into a small, binary SWF file. This has some obvious advantages, mainly that it allows the Flash player to be simpler and not have a full interpreter in it (for example, ActionScript doesn't support eval because there's no way to dynamically execute script at runtime). Back when bandwidth was more constrained it also had the advantage of smaller file sizes and less latency when fetching multiple files.
These were good reasons for their time. However, things have changed. We now have much higher broadband penetration, and the Flash player doesn't have as strong size constraints (though I do agree you want to make sure the size stays small in general -- I've always liked the size constraint Adobe has around their player versus Sun with the Java VM).
At this point, Flash should start working like the web itself: Flex should be pushed right down to the browser and rendered there, with the ActionScript fetched just like SCRIPT tags. In addition, View Source should be on automatically and hooked into the browser's View Source. If I browse to an MXML page and do View Source, I'll see the MXML Flex markup for it. I could also then see the mx:Script tags and view their source as well.
Why this is good:
- View Source is a good thing. It's helped to propel the growth of the web itself (and the Ajax community which has benefited hugely from it's existence). It's similar to how YouTube and Flickr made the default option for sharing be public and experienced massive growth -- this made things grow faster versus Snapfish, for example, which made everything private by default. If someone wants to keep their source private they can obfuscate their source just like we do today with JavaScript. View Source should always be on (you can't turn it off) -- just obfuscate your source if you don't want it.
- No compile phase -- the dev experience would become similar to working with HTML and JavaScript today.
- Over time, human readable textual formats have won -- SMTP, HTML, etc. Binary formats are better on paper (and are better in practice many times), but the simplicity of working with textual formats when creating software is just so much easier and is generally worth the efficiency tradeoff. Imagine simple PHP scripts that can just generate MXML, for example -- much easier than trying to emit a binary SWF file from PHP.
Flash should implement the HTML 5 History interface and should deeply integrate with the browser's bookmarking and history. I know there were some earlier efforts to have Flash have bookmarking machinery, but its buggy, no one uses it, and it doesn't work very well.
Don't Be Afraid of the Browser
AIR is really cool when you want to build desktop applications using web technologies. However, the browser doesn't need to be routed around as if it were a source of damage, which is what AIR essentially does. Personally I'd rather see Flash deeply embrace the browser itself and expand what can be done there, similar to Gears -- I want the web to grow into the desktop, not have the desktop grow into the web. Flash developers generally see the strengths of the browser as weaknesses, when they shouldn't:
- The browsers chrome is your friend -- I know you want to get rid of the URL bar and the back and forward buttons for your application, but users depend on this consistent UI. Users spend far more time navigating across many sites than your particular application -- UI consistency in the browser is a good thing. AIR jettisons the browser and loses this -- Flash should expand what web applications can do within the browser itself instead.
- Sandboxing is good - the fact that web applications have limited trust is a feature, not a bug. AIR throws away the sandbox, making it hard for users to effortlessly experiment and try new web sites. Instead, Flash should adopt what Gears and HTML 5 are trying to do, which is to expand the sandbox in a safe and consistent way.
- Users don't want to download applications, they just want to visit URLs - In AIR I have to download an application. Instead, users would rather visit web sites (though having a nice icon on your desktop is a good thing, similar to the Gears Desktop Shortcuts). I'd love if Flash allowed me to drop shortcuts on my desktop to web apps that live at URLs (and which might have cached code locally for performance like the Gears LocalServer, though this would be transparent to the user). However, again, the growth of the web has shown that the ease of simply navigating to URLs (and the safety because of the sandbox) drives huge growth.
Hyperlinks Are Your Friend
Hyperlinks are essential to the web, navigation, and searching -- it's the Hypertext in HyperText Markup Language (HTML) after all. Flash should embrace linking into the resources that are internally present (such as targeting particular parts of an MXML document). I'm not saying XLink is the way to do this, but perhaps one could mix in an attribute onto an MXML element (or the equivalent of a div and span in some inline text in an MXML element) that makes the element a targetable anchor. Or even better, just automatically make everything targetable:
http://example.com/my_flex_app.mxml#find(Some Text)
The line above would simply find the first occurrence of 'Some Text'. If there are multiple occurrences you can simply choose which one, starting at 1 rather than 0; for example, to target the second occurrence of 'Some Text', you would do the following:
http://example.com/my_flex_app.mxml#find(Some Text)[2]
This is good for search engines, for SEO, and for users. Again, this is just like View Source -- make things linkable by default.
Embrace REST and Readable Remoting Protocols
The Flash remoting protocols are interesting and a nifty piece of engineering. You've got AMF which is essentially a binary RPC protocol, and then you have things like RTMP which lie above this and which can efficiently intermix multiple streams of multimedia to ensure that no channel get's 'starved' if you are doing multiple collaboration or mixing streams together -- nice work. Again, however, this is a case where local efficiency is the enemy of broad adoption. Binary protocols make sense in some cases, but its much better to sacrifice the efficiency of binary protocols for the integration possibilities of textual protocols.
Flash should embrace REST (and if it must have RPC, just do XML-RPC) and layer higher-level protocols above these as HTTP-based protocols. Yes, you're going to sacrifice some efficiency, but it's just much easier for someone to throw up a PHP or Rails based backend that can setup things through REST, spit out some XML-RPC, or do multimedia through something like Jabber.
Embrace SVG
Yes, I know you are creating your own vector-graphics markup language, and I know you just published a long editorial on why SVG wasn't perfect for your needs. I hear what you're saying, but reading through the list it seems like minor errata rather than really good reasons. It seems more like the developer really wanted to make their own thing -- I understand that, it's always more fun to roll your own thing.
SVG's not perfect -- standards never are (and neither was TCP/IP or SMTP versus the competition, BTW). But SVG is actually pretty damn good, and the baseline of support has gotten strong the last year across Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera. In the next two years I think we'll start to see SVG emerge as a real tool in most web developers toolkits -- Flash should embrace this. Go ahead and add what you need to it (innovation is okay), but support the core standard itself. It's going to be a little different than the other MXML it's mixed in with, one of the issues you raise, but global systems like the web tend to sacrifice some internal consistency in support of evolvability.
Bonus point: Support the Canvas tag as well, including Web fonts (TrueType, not EOT).
Integrate with HTML and CSS
Yes, HTML has been sitting on its butt for awhile, but things like HTML 5 are starting to make things exciting again, and the work Safari and Firefox have been doing around CSS Effects are really powerful (and really easy for developers to use).
This can be a two-way integration. MXML has some cool ideas around layout, for example, that would be nice to push into HTML, while it would be pretty nifty to start being able to mix HTML and MXML together in some way and styling MXML using CSS. This might also include having one of the open source browsers integrate MXML and aspects of Flash into the layout engine itself. More thought needs to happen around the best way for these particular technologies to integrate.
Make Friends with HTML 5 Video
It would be pretty cool to simply open source and patent-unencumber the FLV format into HTML 5 as the default codec for the HTML 5 Video tag. I might be dreaming (and a bit off about FLV -- I don't know it's technical details deeply), but it never hurts to dream...
Support Both Documents and Applications
The web is good at documents (and with the addition of Ajax relatively okay at applications), while Flash is okay with applications, and not good at documents. The interesting thing about the web is it's actually a spectrum:
Documents <------- Hybrids -------> Applications
What we really need is a technology that can easily adapt along this continuum, creating documents, hybrids like Facebook and MySpace, all the web to full-blown appliations like Gmail and Buzzword, perhaps merging the best ideas of Flash and the HTML web stack. Mark this one as a research area.
Start Working with the W3C and IETF (and/or the Open Web Foundation)
Yeah, I know, working with standards bodies can be a pain. However, it would be pretty cool to have alot of the work happening in Flash flowing into the W3C and IETF (which I know has been happening around Adobe's ActionScript work, but not other aspects). If you want a lighter weight process, you should check out the Open Web Foundation's way of working, which is based on things like OpenID, OAuth, etc. which are a bit more pragmatic than the standards bodies we have today.
Conclusion
At the end of the day Adobe is a tools company, a really damn good tools company actually. Doing the above should allow Adobe to continue creating powerful tools that help authors and content creators while expanding the size of the market they can target.
The above list was just a suggestion to kick things off. The real focus is on having Flash integrate into the web stack better itself (and evolving both Flash and the web stack themselves into the future).
How do you see this happening?
Labels: flash, html5, open web
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
