1
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Rich Internet Applications (RIA)
A Comparison between two popular frameworks (Adobe Flex &
Microsoft Silverlight)
A study submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
In Information Systems Management
at
The University of Sheffield
Submitted by:
Ankita Sunil Sonavane
Registration Number: 100151862
Date: September 2011
2
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Abstract
The purpose of this research study is to carry out a comparison between two
popular plug-in based RIA development frameworks, which are Adobe Flex
and Microsoft Silverlight. The end result sought is: which RIA development
framework among the both can prove to be a better option for
developers/designers to build Rich Internet Applications for the web. The
aims and objectives of this study are: 1) To examine the various technical/
non-technical characteristics of both the frameworks and evaluate which
framework is more efficient and user friendly for developing RIAs, 2)To
examine the positioning and reputation of both the RIA development
frameworks in the current market and 3) Correlating results of both the
above mentioned objectives to find out which RIA development framework
is superior than the other, all aspects combined.
In order to meet the objectives of this study, researcher used a technical
aspects evaluation system for gathering and analyzing support provided by
both the frameworks to different tools and features used for developing RIAs,
then a online questionnaire was used to gather data for evaluating user
experience of both the frameworks and to carry out the evaluation of market
standing of both the frameworks data from different online sources was used.
The conclusion of this study indicate that a conflict was seen between the
results of the various aspects on the basis of which both the frameworks were
compared. On one hand users rated Adobe Flex as a better platform for
designing RIAs and on the other hand Microsoft Silverlight was a winner in
the technical support and current market standing category.
3
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Acknowledgement
Though my name appear on the front page of this dissertation, Many people
have contributed to its completion and I am sincerely thankful all those
people because of whom my postgraduate experience has been the one which
I will cherish throughout my life
My deepest gratitude is towards my supervisor Dr. Val Gillet whose
guidance helped me to recover at stages where I faced a lot of problems. I am
amazingly fortunate to have such a supervisor whose support helped me to
complete my thesis successfully. I am also thankful to her for approving my
dissertation work and taking out time for correcting my mistakes.
I am also thankful to all the participants who took part in my questionnaire
and gave their views about my topic, without whom this wouldn't have been
possible. I am also thankful to my parents for their support while this
research was conducted, without their blessing it wouldn't have been
possible.
Last but not the least I owe my deepest gratitude towards The University of
Sheffield for providing such a professional level of education and facilities
which helped me boost my knowledge in a very short span of time.
THANK YOU ALL...
4
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Research Background .................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Rich Internet Applications (RIAs) ................................................................................. 8
1.3 Research Aims & Objectives ....................................................................................... 12
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 14
2.1 HTML & The World Wide Web .................................................................................. 14
2.1.1 Inception of HTML and The World Wide Web .................................................... 15
2.1.1.1 Hypertext (Hypermedia) ................................................................................ 17
2.1.1.2 Global Hypertext Systems ............................................................................. 20
2.1.1.3 Growth of Internet .......................................................................................... 21
2.1.1.4 Domain Name Systems .................................................................................. 22
2.1.2 Evolution of HTML .............................................................................................. 22
2.1.2.1 Role of Browsers ............................................................................................ 23
2.1.2.2 Semantic HTML Vs Presentational HTML ................................................... 26
2.1.2.3 Cascading Style Sheets .................................................................................. 27
2.1.2.4 Journey from Static to Dynamic web pages ................................................... 28
2.2 Web 2.0: The Participatory Web .................................................................................. 29
2.2.1 Animation & Graphics: A More Lively Web ....................................................... 31
2.2.2 Challenges Lead to Development ......................................................................... 32
2.3 Thin Client Vs Rich Clients ......................................................................................... 33
2.3.1 Thin Clients ........................................................................................................... 34
2.3.2 Rich Clients ........................................................................................................... 35
2.4 Rise of Rich Internet Applications ............................................................................... 38
2.5 Rich Internet Applications Finally Arrive. .................................................................. 41
2.5.1 Plugin based frameworks ...................................................................................... 45
2.5.2 Non-Plugin (JavaScript ) based framework .......................................................... 46
2.6 Comparison of RIA Development Frameworks .......................................................... 47
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 51
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 51
3.2 RIA Framework Comparison Methodology ................................................................ 51
3.3 Data collection ............................................................................................................. 54
3.3.1 Data collection approach and data types ............................................................... 54
3.3.2 Data Collection Instruments .................................................................................. 55
5
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
3.3.2.1 Technical aspects evaluation system .............................................................. 56
3.3.2.2 Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 56
3.3.2.3 Market standing evaluation system ................................................................ 57
3.3.4 Selection of Target Audience ................................................................................ 58
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 60
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 60
4.2 Results of Technical Aspects Evaluation System ........................................................ 60
4.2.1 List of Characteristics ........................................................................................... 60
4.2.2 Results and Description ........................................................................................ 63
4.3 Results of Online Survey ............................................................................................ 73
4.4 Results of the market standing evaluation system ...................................................... 79
DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 80
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 80
5.2 Technical Characteristics ............................................................................................. 80
5.2.1 Table of Comparison ............................................................................................. 81
5.2.2 Overall Support for Technical Characteristics ...................................................... 83
5.3 Non-Technical Characteristics ..................................................................................... 84
5.3.1 Individual Analysis ............................................................................................... 85
5.3.1.1 Graphical Richness ........................................................................................ 85
5.3.1.2 User Interface Elements ................................................................................. 85
5.3.1.3 Multimedia Support ....................................................................................... 86
5.3.1.4 Multimedia Support ....................................................................................... 87
5.3.1.5 Designer/Developer Tools ............................................................................. 87
5.3.1.6 Costs ............................................................................................................... 88
5.3.1.7 Performance ................................................................................................... 89
5.3.1.8 Refactoring & Code-Completion Support ..................................................... 89
5.3.1.9 Migration ........................................................................................................ 90
5.3.1.10 Overall User Experience .............................................................................. 91
5.3.2 Grouped Analysis .................................................................................................. 92
5.3.3 Over all Support for Non-Technical Characteristics ............................................. 93
5.4 Market Standing ........................................................................................................... 94
5.4.1 Worldwide Market Reputation .............................................................................. 95
5.4.1.1 Silverlight Plug-in Version Support .............................................................. 95
5.4.1.2 Flash Plug-in Version Support ....................................................................... 97
5.4.5 Global Market Penetration of Web Browser Plug-ins .......................................... 98
6
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
5.4.2 Global Web Search Interest ................................................................................ 101
5.4.2.1 Interest Over Time: Adobe Flex &Microsoft Silverlight ............................. 101
5.4.2.2 Regional Interest: Adobe Flex &Microsoft Silverlight ................................ 103
5.4.3 Related books available on amazon and ebay ..................................................... 105
5.4.4 Threads/Discussions on framework's official websites ....................................... 107
5.4.5 Popularity of facebook ........................................................................................ 108
5.5 Correlation ................................................................................................................. 109
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 112
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 116
7.1 Further Research ........................................................................................................ 116
7.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 119
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................... 125
7
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
The software industry undergoes evolution constantly with new technologies,
new concepts, new software applications being launched every day. Nowadays,
focus is not just on developing something that meet user's expectations and
demands but, on building something that surpasses their expectations and
enhances their overall experience. This urge to take user's experience of using
software applications to a whole new level by making it richer, responsive and
more interactive than before is seen among the developers of Rich Internet
Application (RIA) development frameworks/platforms.
Most of the benefits provided by RIA technologies suggest that they are only
developed for making end-users experience of web applications more interactive
and graphically rich. But, that was not the only purpose for developing RIAs,
Noda and Helwig (2005) stated that, "RIA technologies are not only for
enriching user experiences, but also for empowering businesses to reduce
development time and costs, taking web development to a whole new level".(p.1)
Today, with the help of the constantly evolving technologies, existing powerful
systems that support this technology and their connectivity with the Internet, no
needs and expectations of the end-users and businesses seem unattainable for the
dominant software manufacturing companies. This is the reason why a strong
competition is seen among companies such as, Adobe Systems Inc., Sun
Microsystems, Microsoft etc.,which are constantly striving to provide their
8
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
clients(designers, developers, programmers and end-users) with the best
platform/software for designing RIAs that not only meet but exceed their
demands.
But, with so much competition in this field, picking the right solution for
developing a RIA that best suit their needs becomes a tricky task. The purpose of
this research project is to guide designers/developers of rich applications in their
decision of which plug-in based RIA development framework (Microsoft
Silverlight and Adobe Flex) to pick.
1.2 Rich Internet Applications (RIAs)
As mentioned above evolution is one thing that has been constant in the software
industry. It all started with the introduction of a concept called Hypertext
(Hypermedia) systems in the late 1960s, these systems provided a user interface
for browsing through large classes of information (computerized documents,
reports, images etc) available in databases. These systems were very popular
back then and it also saw some commercial success. But, its only drawback was
that, it only provided browsing access to information present on a single machine
(computer).
In 1989,this limitation of Hypertext systems led to the introduction of HTML
(HyperText Markup Language) by Tim Berners-Lee, which officially turned out
to be the very first tool for designing something that can be viewed across the
web.
In1990s, when HTML was newly introduced, it was fascinating for the users and
developers of web applications, as it was a relatively new concept back then. It
9
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
was appreciated for its several qualities, such as, systematic structuring of
documents/pages to be displayed, formatting of text's font type, size colour,
layout etc with the help of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). Thus, users only got to
view web pages with structured documents which presented static text formatted
and styled with the help of CSS, and concept of rich and interactive web
applications still had a long way to go.
Over the years HTML has gone through a lot of development, started as simple
language which allowed to display stagnant /static information (like text and
images are presented in books and newspapers) to a complex markup language
that allowed to display all singing and dancing web pages with richer and
dynamic data (like animated images, sounds and all manners of gimmicks
(Raggett et. al, 1998).
Allaire (2002) stated that, "In mid-1990s, explosive growth in the Internet and
the World Wide Web drove widespread adoption of a new model for content and
applications using personal computers connected to the Internet". (p.1)
This was the reason why "Thin Client" computing systems came into existence.
Thin Client systems had their advantage, such as, they were cheaper for
designing and developing applications, it also made managing and maintaining
applications an easy task. But, these systems also had its drawbacks, they failed
to meet end-users demands of rich and interactive application interfaces and
sophisticated applications that could be built and delivered as a whole.
Complexities in various tasks performed through web applications were
increasing over time , especially when it came to high levels of interaction,
client-side processing and multimedia capacities, here the traditional HTTP-
10
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
HTML web applications started showing their limits (Preciado, 2007) .
Traditional web applications were facing great limitations, they were inadequate
in providing end-users with interactive and rich functionalities (support for
animation, different types of multimedia and graphics) for the user interface.
Thus, to overcome all these drawback and limitations associated with the
traditional web applications a new breed of web applications came into existence,
the so called Rich Internet Applications (RIAs) (Busch and Koch, 2009).
It was not just the limitations of the traditional web applications, but the
demands of businesses and end-users were exceeding day by day than their
investment in Internet Technology and in order to meet their needs, software
companies were forced to look towards developing more richer models for
designing applications that combined the media-rich power of desktop and
content rich nature of web applications (Allaire, 2002).
The term "Rich Internet Applications" (RIAs) made its debut in 2002 in a white
paper released by Macromedia. RIAs offered a lot of benefits over traditional
web applications, they provided richer, responsive and interactive graphical user
interface, much like the interface of desktop applications. These applications use
a relatively robust client-side rendering engines than traditional web applications
that allow them to present much intense, responsive and graphically richer user
interfaces, they also provide a wide range of controls (sliders, date pickers, tabs,
gauges etc) for designing interfaces and some RIA technologies also provided
support for displaying full-motion animation in response to data changes
(O'Rourke, 2004).
11
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Then, their architecture is based on the structural design of thick(rich) client
systems which facilitate asynchronous communication and provide variety of
widgets that help to manipulate the user interface elements, on one hand the data
and processes are managed by the clients and on the other hand the network
traffics is reduced by improved communication (Busch and Koch, 2009).
More than designing RIAs, the development of software that can be used for
designing RIAs was a complex task. As the process of requirements engineering
had to take into account all the various interactive features and functionalities
that a RIA has to offer to its end-users, which separated it from the traditional
web applications. This software is called a RIA development framework or
platform and it can be categorised under two different categories:
Plug-in Based RIA Development Frameworks: Requires a plug-
in(small piece of program) to be installed on the client's system before
executing the application, as it's responsible for verifying, executing and
updating the RIA. For Example: Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe Flex.
Non-Plug-in or JavaScript Based Frameworks: Here, no plug-in needs
to be installed and the framework makes use of the in-built browser
functionality for executing the RIA. For Example: AJAX.
12
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
1.3 Research Aims & Objectives
The purpose of this research project is to study, analyse and compare two plug-
in based RIA development frameworks. This comparison will be carried out
between today's two popular plug-in based RIA development frameworks,
namely, Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe Flex. Since their inception, both these
frameworks have made their finest efforts to provide web application designers/
developers (both professional and beginners) with a platform, that allows them to
create more and more "richer" , "responsive" and "interactive" applications for its
users.
The focus of this study will be on determining which of these above mentioned
frameworks have better tools, features and functionalities to offer. So that, it will
guide the RIA designers/developers in their decision making process of picking a
plug-in based RIA framework, by making them aware of varied possibilities and
limitations associated with both the platforms. To do so, the comparison process
has been carefully structured and divided in three parts: technical elements
(compares different tools and features of both frameworks) , non-technical
elements (compares user experience of both the frameworks) and market
standing (compares the reputation of both the frameworks in current market).
Thus, the purpose of this study will be achieved by fulfilling the below
mentioned aims and objectives:
13
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
To examine the various technical/ non-technical characteristics of both
the RIA development frameworks (Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe Flex)
and evaluate which framework is more effective, efficient and user
friendly for developing RIAs.
To examine the positioning and reputation of both the RIA development
frameworks in the current market.
Correlating results of both the above mentioned objectives to find out
which RIA development framework is superior than the other, all aspects
combined.
14
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 HTML & The World Wide Web
Today, it has been more than 20 years since „HTML‟ (Hyper Text Markup
Language) and the „World Wide Web‟ was first introduced to the world by Tim
Berners-Lee. Gillies and Cailliau (2000) defined web as follows, "The World Wide
Web is like an encyclopaedia, a telephone directory, a record collection, a video
shop, and Speakers' Corner all rolled into one and accessible through any computer".
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C - A worldwide association formed for
developing guidelines and protocols which ensures that the web reaches its full
potential ) defined HTML as, “A publishing language of the World Wide Web and
as one of the main components of the Open Web Platform” (W3C, 2011). Today if
you look up the term „HTML‟ online, you will come across hundreds of definitions
for it, but in simple words it can be described as a language that is used for designing
and structuring the format of web pages/documents that can be displayed on the web.
It helps to create the layout of how these web pages would look like when viewed
using a web browser (Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer). Back in late 1980s,
when HTML was just introduced to the world, it did not just display text on web
pages, but, in the coming years efforts were made to make this experience more
richer for the users, by providing support for displaying multimedia (images, audio
etc). Viewing multimedia was all the richness users got to experience back then.
15
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
When we talk about HTML, the discussion is incomplete without bringing up the
term called an „Open Web Platform‟, it can be defined as a collection of different
web specifications developed by different web standardization bodies like, the
Unicode Consortium, the Internet Engineering task force, ECMA International,
including the W3C (Hegaret, 2011). In 2011, CEO of W3C Jaffe defined it as, “ A
platform for innovation, consolidation and cost efficiencies”.
When Hegaret came up with the term “Open Web Platform” (OPW) in 2010, the
idea was quite clear in his mind, it wasn‟t just associated with availability of
hundreds of open specifications and technologies that play a vital role in enhancing
our web experience and making it more richer and vibrant. But, it actually depicted
that, the current and future development of the web has to be based upon these set of
open technologies that are available not only for a particular country, part of society
or group of people, but, for all.
The web has been successfully developed and used by so many people for so long
because of this very concept called the Open Web Platform. The web exists today
because of the contributions (collection of open technologies available for general
audience and which are not company owned) made by companies, people and
organisations who are passionate about it. More than 100 such specifications have
been standardized by the W3C itself and more by other bodies mentioned above.
2.1.1 Inception of HTML and The World Wide Web
In 1989, the World Wide Web was born with HTML as its publishing language
(Raggett, 1998). Berners-Lee invented the web when he was working in the
computing services department at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear
Research), its headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, it's an international
16
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
organization whose aim is to bring together physicists from all over the globe and
carry out the operations of biggest and most respected particle physics laboratory in
the world (CERN, 2008). But this wasn‟t the first time when he came up with the
idea of web. He had some experience in text processing and document production,
and long back in 1980s was the time when he created the first hypertext system for
his personal use (Raggett, 1998). The concept of this hypertext system was close to
the idea of the web, he named it „Enquire‟, a short form for an old Victorian book he
found at his parents place named, “Enquire within upon Everything” (Berners-Lee
and Fischetti, 1999).
Berners-Lee‟s first hypertext system (Enquire) and the Victorian book were the two
things that helped build the foundation on which the concept of web was based
upon.. This book was like an encyclopaedia, which held information on different
things like cooking tips, washing tips, recipes and investment tips etc.. It was sort of
a written version of his idea of the web, not perfectly similar to it, but, at least it was
the starting point.
His conception of the web much more larger than that, something where people
would not just go to fetch information from but would also be able to share it with
the rest of the world, unlike in the case of books where people have to wait for the
next edition for more information, he wanted something where not only recipes,
health tips and other such stagnant information will be shared, but real time
information like weather forecasts, current news and more would also be shared. In
short, his vision was about anything being potentially connected with anything
(Berners-Lee and Fischetti, 1999).
17
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
When at CERN he started thinking more about this concept and how it can be shared
with the rest of the world, he never thought that in the future, “the web” would
become such an essential part of our lives and would be implemented on such a huge
scale.
Through 1990s, the idea started shaping up. But, was it too soon? Raggett (1998)
stated that, invention of web in 1990s was no coincidence, as the developments in
the world of communications technology during that time were such that, sooner or
later it was bound to happen.
Why Raggett meant by the developments in the world of communications
technology were the following four factors:
The increasing popularity of Hypertext a.k.a. Hypermedia systems.
The inception of a Global Hypertext System.
Growing number of Internet users during that time.
The introduction of DNS (Domain Name System) which made addressing
machines over the Internet easier.
These four factors played a vital role in the rise of the world wide web, and they are
discussed in much detail in the next sub-sections.
2.1.1.1 Hypertext (Hypermedia)
This term was first coined by Ted Nelson in 1965 (W3C, 2011). Berners-Lee and
Cailliau (1990) defined hypertext as follows,
“HyperText is a way to link and access information of various kinds as a web of
nodes in which the user can browse at will and it provides a single user-interface to
18
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
many large classes of stored information such as reports, notes, databases, computer
documentation and on-line systems help”.
The term hypertext is actually a misnomer, as many of the current systems allow and
even encourage the inclusion of non-text data such as graphics, animations and
digitized sounds (Bevilacqua ,1989).
In simple words it can be defined as, a text that provides access (hyperlinks) to not
just textual data but also graphics, images, audio/video files using a single user
interface and because of this, Nelson also proposed another term called
"hypermedia", which according to him was more suitable for these systems.
Aspen Movie Map was the first hypertext system, a revolutionary application
developed at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in 1978, it was a virtual
tour of the city of Aspen, Colorado (Inventing Interactive, 2010).
Then, Berners-Lee developed „Enquire‟ in 1980, a hypertext system for his personal
use. Next hypertext system called „Hypercard‟ introduced to the world in 1987 ,
developed by Bill Atkinson a very talented programmer who worked for Apple
Inc..This program used the metaphor of cards as files of information that can be
accessed and manipulated in a free form manner. It allowed full-text searching
without the need to pre-index information and users can search and browse by
scanning groups of items (Mac GUI City, 1987). The concept and working of the
Hypercard program, gave a rise to more such similar programs to be developed. Like
the 'Toolbook' for PC and 'Guide' for both UNIX and PC.
In 1982, Peter J. Brown, Professor of Computer Science at the University of Kent,
Canterbury developed Guide as a part of research project. This system's aim was not
19
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
just to present documents on computer screen but was to break away from the
constraint of paper and rethink from scratch how to best display documents on
screen, also one of its desires was to take advantage of the high bandwidth of
communication between the user and computer offered by graphics workstation
(Brown, 1987). It was commercially launched in 1984.
'Hypertext Systems' was a popular area of research during the 1980s and it saw a lot
of commercial success, as most of the developers wanted their product to be the one
that captured market and gained maximum user acceptance. But, even then, there
were certain drawbacks associated with it.
Getting disoriented while browsing through files and documents on these
systems was easy as they lacked the assistance that books provide, such as
indexes and table of contents etc.
Another problem was that, while browsing through documents users should
be purely aware of what sort of information they are looking for; if they do
not make right choices they might end up overloading themselves with
unwanted and unnecessary information. Bevilacqua (1989) defended this by
saying that, "Although this problem is not new with hypertext, computerized
access does add a sometimes overwhelming dimension to it".
Then came the compatibility setback: it was too soon to address this issue
during that time, as even Bevilacqua (1989) stated that, "imposing standards
while hypertext is in an experimental stage will dampen creativity".
And the one of the biggest limitation of these systems was that, hypertext
jumps were only possible for files on the same computer and jumps to
20
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
computers on the other side of the world was still out of question (Raggett,
1998).
But, these limitations and entire concept of hypertext systems turned out to be the
underlying concept on the basis of which the framework of the world wide web was
build upon. Invention of this concept is the reason why people first got a chance to
share, jump and access various types of multimedia and text on a worldwide scale.
This is the reason why Berners-Lee‟s dream of a global information sharing system
became a reality.
2.1.1.2 Global Hypertext Systems
Berners-Lee was the one who first thought of a global hypertext system, that will not
just facilitate jumps between files on the same computer but also to other computers.
But it wasn't an easy task as the global hypertext system he wanted to create has to
run on the different types of computers (PCs, Macintoshes etc), and most of the
hypertext systems developed during that time were computer specific. So, in order to
create a global system that can access text from different machines, he had to find a
way of compiling text in such a format that is acceptable and standard for all the
machines. And, to deal with all these requirements/issues that stood in the way of
creating a global hypertext system, Berners-Lee developed the HTTP protocol,
which stands for HyperText Transfer Protocol for retrieving other documents and the
text format for HTTP was named HTML (Raggett, 1998).
21
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
2.1.1.3 Growth of Internet
During the same time, when efforts were being made in methods for accessing
information on the web, the Internet itself was developing, its rise and growth in
number of its worldwide users also played an important role in building the
foundation of the web.
Many people thought that the web and Internet are one and the same thing but they
were not. Gillies and Cailliau (2000) stated the difference between both in their book
by saying that,
"The Internet is like a network of electronic roads criss-crossing the planet - the
much hyped information superhighway and web is just one of many services using
that network , just as many different kinds of vehicle use the roads".
Many technical innovations have acted as predecessors to the rise in the number of
worldwide Internet users. One of the major factors for the fledgling Internet was the
introduction of the first host-to-host protocol called Network Control Protocol
(NCP), in 1972 NCP was implemented in all the ARPANET sites and the focus was
shifted on the development of applications, which again turned out to be one of the
paramount factors for the phenomenal and sustained growth of the Internet (Coffman
and Odlyzko, 2001).
Then, introduction of Internet email program in the 1970s which facilitated exchange
of messages over the distributed network, became quite popular among Internet users
as it was a new and unique way to communicate will people across the globe.
Coffman and Odlyzko (2001) stated that,
22
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
".Internet email was clearly one of the key drivers for the popularity (and hence the
phenomenal traffic growth demands) of the Internet and was the first "killer app" for
the Net". (p.14)
Then with the introduction of Domain Name Systems, another boost was seen in the
number of Internet users.
2.1.1.4 Domain Name Systems
Postel (1982) said that, " The Domain Name System was originally invented to
support the growth of email communications on the ARPANET, and now supports
the Internet on a global scale". With Domain Name System a user friendly naming
system that helped to address and locate devices on the Internet, was introduced to
the world. What this system basically did was translate difficult to remember
numeric identifiers known as IP Addresses (187.36.27.000) to simple and easy to
remember alphabetical identifiers known as domain names (www.dns.com). This
naming system played a vital role in making Internet accessible to a large audience
worldwide and it also simplified the email addresses, as before DNS was introduced
email addresses were represented by complicated and meaningless signs and codes.
2.1.2 Evolution of HTML
Over the years HTML has undergone lot of innovation, Raggett (1998) stated that,
“HTML has evolved from a simple language to a complex system of mark-up,
enabling authors to create all singing and dancing web pages complete with animated
images, sounds and all manners of gimmicks”.
This means that, HTML has gone through a lot of changes and modifications since
the time it was first introduced to the world. Many new features have been added and
23
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
old unwanted features were phased out every time a new version was released. Its
first version was published in late 1991 , the current W3C recommendation for
HTML (version 4.01) was published in December 1999 and intensive work is being
carried out to define the next version i.e. HTML 5 (W3C, 2011).
When Berners-Lee first introduced HTML, people started getting familiar with the
concept of 'web applications', which can be described as an application that can be
accessed over a network (Internet) with the help of browsers. Initially these
applications were coded with HTML, a wide range of tools were used for this
purpose, from simple plain text editors to sophisticated authoring tools, it used tags
such as <h1> and </h1> to structure text, so that in can be displayed as heading,
paragraphs , lists, hypertext links, tables etc ( W3C, 1997).
Back in the 1990s, viewing multi-media and just the idea of browsing/jumping
through all this data available on several machines all over of the world was a rich
and interactive experience for the users. But, with time, the meaning of the terms
'rich' and 'interactive' has also evolved, if we think of it today, these web pages made
information available in a very basic and simple format, just like information is
displayed in books and newspapers. Users didn't really get a chance to encounter
what a real "rich" and "interactive" experience can be like.
2.1.2.1 Role of Browsers
HTML was just a simple structured document format with markup tags added
between text strings that specified the role of that text, this made the elements of
early HTML more logical and less presentational, the presentation part was dealt by
the browsers (Wium Lie, 2005).
24
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
The reason for HTML being more logical and less presentational could be CERN (
place where HTML was born), it provided with a more technical environment which
paid more attention to construction of the content of the web pages and less
attention was focused on the styling of web pages. For example: In HTML, tags
were used to wrap the text that was supposed to be displayed as heading, paragraph
or hyperlinks. But, what colour, size or font this text was supposed to appear in,
remained un-described.
This is where the browsers came in, the role of web browsers was to read the HTML
documents and interpret it into visual/audible web pages. In 1993 a tough
competition was seen among the browsers that were launched then, for example:
Erwise, Viola and Midas browsers were available for X Windows system and Samba
was under construction for Mac (Berners-Lee and Fischetti, 1999).
Dave Raggett - a name which has been closely associated with the development of
the World Wide Web since 1992 (W3C, 2003), also entered the competition with his
browser called "Arena". Raggett was convinced that hypertext web pages could be
much more exciting, like magazine pages rather than textbook pages (Berners-Lee
and Fischetti, 1999). He believed that HTML can do more than just displaying text
on web pages and more features could be added to make the browsing experience
richer than before. He came up with Arena to experiment with diverse ways of
representing web pages written using HTML. More, browsers were launched in
coming years.
In 1993, NCSA (National Center for Supercomputing Applications) launched
another browser called "Mosaic", it was developed by Marc Andreessen (a student
who worked at NCSA) and Eric Bina (a programmer who started working for NCSA
25
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
). Berners-Lee and Fischetti (1999) stated in their book that, because of its traits like
- it being easy to install and its requirement of having very little learning before
accessing the web, it soon picked up more rapidly than other browsers. What
differentiated Andreessen 's approach from others who were developing browsers
then was that, he wasn't just interested in participating in the race to develop a
browser, but he also wanted to know and understand the user requirements and then
create a product that would be accepted and used by a large number of people around
the world. This dream of his became a reality when he became one of the co-
founders of Netscape Communications (a US based computer services company) and
launched the Netscape browser.
Wium Lie (2005) said that, "The Netscape browser supported a set of new
presentational HTML tags (e.g. CENTER to center text) and more were to follow
shortly".
Also, Hawn (1995) stated that, "Netscape Communications wants you to forget all
the highway metaphors you've heard about the Internet and instead , think about an
encyclopaedia - one with unlimited, graphically rich pages, connections to E - mail
and files, and access to Internet newsgroups and online shopping".
With Netscape's first launched browser Andreessen fulfilled one of the most
imperative demands of the users, which was to add presentational tags in HTML.
And thus, inclusion of presentational tags in HTML and providing users with a
graphically rich experience, evolved this language from being a simple structure
based markup language (which just concentrated on elements, like - what should be
displayed in the heading, paragraphs etc) to a presentational markup language (which
26
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
also focused on elements associated with the presentation of the content, such as, the
type, colour and size of the font to be displayed.
2.1.2.2 Semantic HTML Vs Presentational HTML
Semantic HTML and Presentational HTML both formed subsets of HTML.
Semantic HTML dealt with the document structuring, i.e. presenting text in
paragraphs, heading etc., and Presentational HTML dealt with the appearance of the
text displayed in the document, i.e. editing elements like font size, type, colour etc.
HTML had the semantic markup right from the beginning and the presentational
markup was introduced later. Knierim (2011) stated that, semantic HTML helps to
make documents easier to understand for machine parsers (search engine robots,
agents, screen readers, accessibility software etc). Even Presentational HTML did
have its plus points, such as, it was easy to type, for example: using <b> instead of
<strong> for making the text bold, also it was identified by most of the browsers
back then.
Considering the fact that HTML was introduced in the first place for presenting
documents to its users and not for the reason of how well it could structure the
documents, this was the reason why presentational HTML was introduced in the first
place. But, using presentational HTML tags wasn't the best way to go, Wium Lie
(2005) said that, "The creators of HTML intended it to be useful in many settings but
presentational tags threatened device independence, accessibility and content reuse".
27
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
2.1.2.3 Cascading Style Sheets
The users appreciated the presentation HTML for its several traits that allowed to
manage and controlled the appearance of a webpage (example: editing the text's font,
size colour and layout etc), but it had its drawbacks, and a much more better option
was available to deal with the presentation aspect, such as, "Cascading Style Sheets"
(CSS). These style sheets allow to describe the appearance of web pages by
providing elements that would help to format the font, colour, size, spacing and
overall layout of the text to be displayed on web pages. With its inception in 1996,
the W3C deprecated the presentational attributes of HTML and preferred the style
sheets over presentational HTML, for styling and formatting the appearance of the
web pages. This was because, the separation of HTML from CSS makes it easier to
maintain sites, share style sheets across pages and tailor pages to different
environment, which W3C referred to as the segregation of structure or content from
presentation (W3C, 2010).
Using style sheets was a much better choice for altering and manipulating
presentational elements because, it offered developers achieve good control over
page formatting by separating content from presentation which simplified
maintenance and all this could be achieved by fairly less amount of coding. Thus, in
those days, viewing web pages designed using HTML and which were formatted &
styled using Cascading Style Sheets was all "rich" the user experience of web
applications got.
28
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
2.1.2.4 Journey from Static to Dynamic web pages
The web pages created using HTML were static, i.e. they just served users with
static, stagnant and non-interactive information, which is delivered to the users in
the same format it is stored in or uploaded onto the server (holds all HTML files).
These were basically simple HTML documents (files) which the server would locate
and sent those files to the browser over the HyperText Transfer Protocol, as an when
information was requested by the users. Each time a static web page was accessed
through a browser, it did not change and the users got to view the same standard
information which the programmer wrote, every time the page was loaded in a
browser. The only time the information on these web pages altered, was the time
when the programmer/developer changed it by himself or replaced a new page
instead of the old one onto the server. Thus, with static web pages users didn't get to
experience any interactivity, until dynamic web pages were introduced.
Dynamic web pages in contrast to Static web pages, tailored the results as per the
users request and represented information in a fresh format depending on what the
user does. Example of Dynamic web pages are: online surveys, forums, blogs,
online voting, e-commerce websites (ebay, amazon etc), in short web applications
which provided personalized attention to the user's needs (Web and Macros, 2011).
Most of the data displayed on dynamic web pages are controlled by databases which
are connected to these web pages, which means that when users requests for some
information, that information is fetched from the database and provided to the user
through browser windows. A good example of dynamic web pages could be a
banking website where each user gets to view different information (i.e. their own
bank account details), as and when they withdraw or add money to their accounts.
This information is updated in the database and then reflected on their online account
29
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
automatically without the programmer having to intervene, unlike static web pages
where the programmer has to manually change the information uploaded on the
server. Thus, inception of Dynamic web pages was the first step of web applications
into the world of "interactive" and "vibrant" web applications.
2.2 Web 2.0: The Participatory Web
As years passed more efforts were seen towards enhancing the web experience of
both developers and end users. One of those steps taken towards enriching the web
experience was the introduction of the term “Web 2.0”. Dale Dougherty, Co-founder
of O‟Reilly Media (company known for its technology conferences and publishing
books and websites) was the one who came up with this term in 2004 in a conference
arranged for discussing the potential future of the web.
Back in the fall of 2001, when the dot-com bubble burst was all over the news, many
thought that web was over-hyped, but both Tim O‟Reilly, vice-president of O‟Reilly
Media and Dougherty thought that the web was far from being crashed and was
actually more important than ever (O‟Reilly, 2005). And, the dot-com bubble burst
in fact triggered a technological revolution and became a turning point for the web
and this led to the inception of Web 2.0.
In the TechWatch report (report which was commissioned to investigate the
substance behind the hyperbole surrounding „Web 2.0‟), O‟Reilly mentioned that, he
separately wanted to discuss the following three elements (Anderson, 2007):
Web Technologies - Ongoing web development by W3C.
More recent applications & services - Emerging as a result of existing
technological development.
30
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
The Big Ideas - Understanding the manifestations and adoption of these
applications & services.
O‟Reilly wanted to do that because he thought that, understanding of these three
elements was important for the strategic implementation of Web 2.0. Also, analysing
the combination and a mesh of these elements would provide vital information for
building the foundation on which Web 2.0 would stand.
Anderson (2007) mentioned in the JISC Technology and Standards Watch Report
that,
“Web 2.0 is a set of new technologies and ideas that are changing the way people
interact but it's also important to acknowledge that these ideas are not necessarily the
preserve of „Web 2.0‟, in fact its direct or in-direct reflections of the power of the
network: the strange effects and topologies at the micro and macro level that a billion
Internet users produce”.
Here, Internet users refers to the users at both the ends, it encompasses not just the
ones who use the web applications but also the developers who design and create
these web applications for them. According to Anderson both these users played a
significant role in the development and shaping of Web 2.0. As, depending on the
usage of and response received by existing new technologies (recent web
applications and services), the developers refine the existing technology and ideas, to
come up with new ideas that build the infrastructure for the future technologies. And
thus provide users with many more advanced and richer applications and services
through the browser window.
31
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Thus, O‟Reilly‟s „Web 2.0‟ can be thought of as evolution of the „Web‟ which
Bernes-Lee introduced to the world, an evolution which wouldn't have been possible
without the alliance, collaboration and participation of users and this was the reason
why it was referred to as the „participatory web‟, which opened doors for more
powerful and richer web applications (O‟Reilly, 2005) .
2.2.1 Animation & Graphics: A More Lively Web
HTML's simple web pages became more lively with introduction of animation. And
all this became possible because of a man called, Jonathan Gay - a programmer who
started his career as a professional programmer at Silicon Beach Software (Software
company owned by Macintosh). He started by designing games and drawing
programs. In 1993, Charlie Jackson founder of Silicon Beach Software launched a
company called FutureWave Software, to design and develop graphics related
software.
Waldron (2000) stated in his article that, in 1995, FutureWave received demands of a
lot of people saying that the company should convert their smart drawing software
called "SmartSketch" into an animation software and he also said that, during that
time market for animation tools was very small, plus the only way to distribute
animation was on VHS or CD ROM. Thus, demand for creating an animation
software considering the market conditions for it and the problem it's distribution
posed, didn't make any sense.
But, that was the time when Internet and the World Wide Web was making its
presence felt, and the company started looking at the web as a medium for quick and
easy distribution of animation, which would create a strong & profitable market for
their first animation software.
32
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
During that time Java was the only way to extend a browser so that it can support the
play back of an animation, but it was horribly slow, in fall of 1995, Netscape
communications browser came out with a plug-in API that wasn't as bad as Java
based extension and actually turned out to be a good choice for extending web
browsers that gave a decent performance (Gay, 2011).
Thus, in 1995 creation of this animation software became a reality and FutureWave
Software launched its first animation product called FutureSplash Animator to full-
fill the users demand of an animation software and their wish of creating animations
for the web.
In summer of 1996, FutureSplash Animator started gaining public interest with two
high profile clients, their first client was Microsoft, who were working on web
version of MSN, who wanted to create TV like experience on the Internet and their
other high-profile client was Disney Online, who wanted to create animated
interface for their online subscription service(Waldron, 2000). Because of the
company's strong associations with Microsoft and Disney, later in December of
1996, Macromedia purchased the company and FutureSplash Animator was re-
branded and released as Macromedia Flash 1.0 (Gay, 2001).
2.2.2 Challenges Lead to Development
In a white paper released by Macromedia, Allaire (2002) stated that,
"In many respects, much of the web application development and deployment
technology of the late 1990s has had to adapt to the challenges imposed by the
architecture inherent in the web". (p.1)
33
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
This means that, since the inception of Internet and the World Wide Web in 1990s,
technology has been evolved on a large scale which has in turn, posed a constant
challenge to the field of web-based software development. And this challenge has
been gladly accepted by the developers/designers who made efficient use of this
evolving technology, by providing their audience(users) with numerous applications
that have now became a part of their lives.
These web-based applications have not just helped people by making their day-to-
day life easy(for example: people now no longer need to make time and go out to
pay their bills, to shop or for banking, they can do it any time/anywhere from the
convenience of their home) but also helped various businesses flourish (for
example: various applications that help businesses to collect, manage and share their
data, conduct market analysis and study business trends by gathering data from
several online sources to structure a report etc).
2.3 Thin Client Vs Rich Clients
Now that the challenge to develop web based applications that compliments the
explosive growth of the existing technological advances, the Internet and the World
Wide Web was steadily been taken care of by the developers, who were designing
new and innovative applications for the web. Another question was raised, i.e. which
of the available web-based systems (models) to choose from, a "thin client" system
or a" rich client" system? Even though the main purpose of both these systems is to
facilitate remote access of data, there was still a huge difference in the design and
concept of these systems, which is discussed below.
34
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
2.3.1 Thin Clients
A white paper by Bright Software (2003) stated that,
"A thin client typically runs a browser, rendering a mark-up language such as
HTML, here user interacts with the HTML rendered forms which are pulled down
from the server along with the data being manipulated". (p.2)
This means that, in a thin client system all the important information (businesses
related or otherwise) is saved on the server, this makes maintaining and managing of
the application quite an easy task, as simply updating the server centrally does the
trick. Thus, the next time when users connect to the server, all directly get to view an
updated version of the application. This is one of the advantages of choosing a thin
client system.
Other advantages of using a thin client system are, the costs associated with
development and designing of an application for the users(customers), as per their
demands, was quiet cheap and affordable. This model also had a variety of
applications to offer to its users that addressed their needs and requirements.
Even though thin client systems have all the above mentioned advantages, this
system had its downside and weaknesses, which are discussed next.
A llaire (2002) stated about thin-client systems that,
" it has also suffered from significant drawbacks and limitations, especially around
the richness of the application interfaces, media and content, and overall
sophistication of the solutions that could be built and delivered". (p.1)
Thus thin client systems were easy to manage, were economically feasible and had
the capacity to deliver its users with wide range of applications that suit their needs.
35
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
But even with all this, it fell short in providing the users with a rich user interface(as
it makes use of HTML where the presentational aspect is dealt and managed by CSS,
and thin client systems have no control over it) that supported media and other rich
features, plus it also failed to deliver users with functionalities that could possibly be
delivered to enhance their overall user experience of web-based applications.
Then, as mentioned above, as all the information is stored on the server and not on
the client's machine, this means that, providing the clients with an uninterrupted
connection to the server at all times is of vital importance. Because if it fails to do so,
the client won't be able to extract its data that is stored on the server. Also today, the
world is slowly making its move to wireless internet connections and in such a
scenario, providing clients with an un-interrupted connection which LANs and
Broadband connections provide, can sometimes be a problem for wireless systems.
2.3.2 Rich Clients
This is where the rich-client system steps in, to address the user demands which
remained un-fulfilled by thin client systems. Bright Software (2003) defined rich
client systems in their white paper as follows,
"A rich client system is any software running natively on a client machine, it has
access to the windowing and GUI features of the operating system on which it runs,
also it uses local database". (p.2)
These systems clearly are a better choice than the thin client systems for the
following reasons. Firstly, as it provides access to the windowing and manipulation
of graphical user interface elements of the operating system, they have the power to
enhance the user experience by providing them with a rich user interface. Secondly,
36
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
a copy of all the information in the central database is stored on the system's local
database as well. This local database is synchronised with the central database, thus
even in the absence of connection to the server, only the updates of the client's
system will be delayed but data can still be accessed at any time in the absence of
Internet connection, unlike thin client systems which save data on the server, where
any sort of interruption in the connection can cause a problem. Then the way rich
client systems deal with an online form's data validation is better than a thin client
system. In thin client system, user has to fill the form, then after submission of the
entire form data validation takes place and all the errors are highlighted and sent to
the user who then has to resubmit the form. But, a rich client systems identifies those
errors by validating data at the time the form is being filled, this not only saves the
users time by avoiding un-necessary re-submission of the form but, in turn the
scalability of the system is also enhanced.
Hecker (2005) pointed out some other benefits of a rich-client system, he stated that,
In rich-client systems, when certain changes are made, like processing a new move-
in or accepting a payment, all these changes are immediately uploaded to the central
server in real time, then tasks like printing are faster as compared to thin client
systems, as information to be printed is present on the local database and does not
need to be downloaded.
Allaire (2002) stated that, the following features are vital elements of rich client
technologies,
Provide an efficient high-performance runtime for executing code, content
and communications.
37
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Integrate content, communications, and application interfaces into common
environment.
Provide powerful and extensible object models for interactivity.
Enable rapid application development through components and re-use.
Enable the use of web and data services provided by application servers.
Embrace connected and disconnected clients.
Enable easy deployment on multiple platforms and devices.
It's clearly seen that rich-client systems are a better choice than thin-client systems.
They understand client's demands better, they store data more efficiently, they
provide faster access to the data and are more user-friendly than thin-client systems.
Thus, because of these above mentioned qualities rich-client systems got more and
more popular and people and businesses started demanding them.
Microsoft's .NET language allowed to develop(program) these rich-client systems.
Then there was Adobe's Flash which provided users with rich web experience. In a
whitepaper published by Macromedia (2002) it was mentioned that,
"Macromedia Flash MX was built from the ground up to provide a 'rich client'
environment for Internet content and applications that will radically improve the
quality of end-user applications, making Internet more relevant and useful to
businesses and consumers". (p.1)
Thus, with inception of Flash, things that were not possible with thin client systems
rendered by mark-up language (HTML or JavaScript) became attainable for web-
38
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
based application designers and developers. And providing an enhanced/rich
experience to the users became achievable.
2.4 Rise of Rich Internet Applications
In 2002, Businesses and End-Users demands started exceeding than their investment
in Internet technology and in order to cater to their needs, companies were forced to
look towards developing richer models for designing internet based applications, i.e.
a combination of 'media-rich' power of traditional desktop and 'content-rich' nature
of web applications (Allaire, 2002).
Thus, by getting a taste of what rich-client systems had to offer, businesses and end-
users were expecting a rise in the use of such web-based applications that had the
richness of desktop based applications and content sharing/storing capability of
simple web applications. They wanted more interactive and live applications, that
could be used and re-used over the internet as services, in such a way that they
would not only be useful on its own but will also facilitate sharing of data and other
additional functionalities across wide range of client systems in the future. This
increasing anticipation of all the end-users, businesses and companies, also the
growing power of technology(to provide the world with more enhanced applications
and services), all this gave birth to the thought of developing richer and more
interactive web applications, which are more receptive to their needs and demands.
This need of next generation rich clients was identified and discussed by
Macromedia, and thus the term "Rich Internet Applications" (RIA) was first coined
in their white paper released in 2002.
39
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Preciado et al. (2007) stated that,
"Currently the complexity of tasks performed through web applications is increasing,
in particular when high levels of interaction, client-side processing, and multimedia
capacities have to be provided. In this context traditional HTTP-HTML web
applications are showing their limits and developers are building the future of the
Web using Rich Internet Applications (RIAs) technologies, which are web
applications with many additional features". (p.1)
This shows that, it was not just the demands of next-generation clients that led to the
rise of RIAs, but the limitations and drawbacks of simple web applications also
played a crucial role in this.
Preciado et al. (2005) pointed out the following problems associated with traditional
web-based applications,
Process problems: In traditional web applications, users have to navigate
through a bunch of pages in order to complete a single task (Example: the
task of booking a flight).
Data Problems: They do not support interactive explorations of data.
Usually, the user has to search data through the use of input forms and then
to navigate the hypertext to see the desired data.
Configuration problems: Many web applications require the configuration
of a product/system from multicriteria choices, but are, in general, unable to
present the customized product/system to the user in an intuitive way in a
single step.
40
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Feedback Problems: they do not allow a continued and ordered interaction
without page refreshments, so the interaction of the user with traditional web
pages is quite limited.
Interactive exploration of data is not supported, because of which user ends up
browsing through unwanted links and web pages in order to locate what he is
looking for. Innovative data exploration and data visualization functionalities offered
by RIAs are beneficial in this context and they make data exploration more easy and
painless.
Then the feedback problem can be explained as follows, in a traditional web
application, which is designed for filling an online form, data validation takes place
only after the entire form is filled and submitted, then after the submission, all the
errors are highlighted and the user has to make the required changes and re-submit
the form again, which is a waste of time as this process can keep on repeating till the
user fills the information properly. But, in case of RIAs validation takes place in real
time, when the user is filling the form the errors are displayed then and there, so that
the user can make necessary changes and submit the final correct version of the
form, thus RIAs saves their time and they don't have to fill then submit the form and
then wait for the errors to pop-up. Preciado et al. (2007) stated that,
"Nowadays, Rich Internet Applications are gaining ground thanks to the facilities
they provide to develop web applications with multimedia, high levels of
interactivity, collaborative work, and/or homogeneous presentation requirements at
the client side". (p.1)
41
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
These plus points of RIAs are actually the limitations/problems associated with
traditional web applications, they do not handle the presentation element of the
applications as well as the RIAs do, traditional applications are less interactive (no
support for drag&drop feature, rich animation etc); and they do not support
multimedia (audio, video etc) without plug-ins. But, RIAs provide a range of
additional functionalities that take good care of the presentation element and promise
to provide users with richer and interactive web experience. Bozzon et al. (2006)
stated that, due to the increasing complexity of web applications in that current web
technologies are starting to show usability and interactive limits. Thus the reason
behind the rise of RIAs is quite visible, all the limitations and drawbacks of web
applications, their in-ability to provide users with interactive and rich features,
basically gave birth to Rich Internet Applications.
2.5 Rich Internet Applications Finally Arrive.
"Rich Internet Application" (RIA) made its debut in the end of 2000. But the concept
is not new, it's as old as, when the idea of "thin-client" and "rich-client " was first
introduced to the world and as mentioned in the earlier chapter, the term was first
coined in a white paper by Macromedia in March 2002. The drawbacks of web
42
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
applications and developments in the technological environment during that time led
to the inception of the thought to build Rich Applications for the Internet, in order to
address the limitations of the simple web application and providing users with the
richest possible experience by making efficient use of existing technology.
Preciado (2007) defined RIAs as follows, "RIA is the fusion of the interactive and
multimedia user interface functionality of desktop applications with the Web
applications". (p.2)
Bozzon et al. (2006) stated that,
"Typically, a Rich Internet Application is loaded by the client along with some
initial data; then it manages data rendering and event processing, communicating
with the server when the user requires further information or must submit data".(p.1)
Rich Internet Applications were proposed in the first place to address all the
problems and limitations of the simple web applications, they form a variant of web-
based systems by providing sophisticated interfaces that represent complex data and
processes, they minimize client server data transfers by moving the interaction and
presentation layers from the server to the client (Bozzon et al. , 2006). In simple
terms it can defined as follows, a web applications which offer more "richness" and
"interactivity" than a normal web application does, it's features and functionality
makes it more like a desktop application and less like other web based application.
Rich Internet Applications are actually a combination of Desktop Applications, Web
Applications and Communication Technologies, they take the best user functionality
of desktop software applications with the broad reach and low cost deployment of
Web applications and the best interactive, multimedia communication, thus the end
43
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
result of merging these three features provides us with a more intuitive, responsive
and effective user experience (Whatley, 2007).
Figure1: Rich Internet Applications - A Background (Whatley, 2007)
A Rich Internet Application should be something that fits the following criteria
(Grosso, 2005):
An application that is launched from or is contained within a web page.
An application that provides a quick an immediate feedback to users when
they interact with the application (instead of a delay that is caused, while the
response if being fetched from the server somewhere, which is usually the
case in simple web applications). And, it also eliminates the "white screen"
which appears in existing web applications, while the page is being refreshed.
An application that makes use of modern user interface controls, for example:
tree controls, tabbed panels etc.
44
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
An application that lets end-users to carry out common rich-client operations
like drag&drop or using keyboard navigation naturally.
An application that facilitates the same, almost universal reach and ease of
deployment that existing web applications provide.
And finally, an application that provides all the above mentioned
functionalities without the need of large amounts of platform or browser
dependant JavaScript.
RIAs provide users with a wide range of features that are more "rich", "responsive"
and "interactive" than existing web applications. They have combined functionalities
of Desktop Applications, Web Applications and Communications Technology, they
offer both online and offline capabilities, as the data they access is not stored on a
single central database but its copy also resides on a local database which is in sync
with the central database, thus even in the absence of an Internet connection clients
are able to access their data from the database located locally. Then Preciado (2007)
also said that, RIAs offer users with higher interactivity, usability and
personalisation, they minimise the bandwidth usage and separate the presentation
from the content.
Thus, RIAs have a lot of unique features and functionalities to offer to its end-users
and this is the reason behind its emerging popularity. And this emerging popularity
has led to the big names in the software industry like Microsoft and Adobe to
commercially launch frameworks that design and develop Rich Internet
Applications. There is a tough competition seen between these rivals in order to
45
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
provide end-users with special frameworks that build RIAs that provides them with
the best (rich, interactive and responsive) functionalities.
These frameworks basically come under two categories (Grosso, 2005):
Plug-in Based Frameworks: Where plug-in needs to be installed for
running the applications. These plug-ins help in execution, verification and
updation of the RIA.
o Example - Adobe Flex, Microsoft Silverlight etc.
Non Plug-in Based Frameworks: Here no plug-ins need to be installed for
executing, verifying and updating the RIA.
o Example - AJAX (Browser based frameworks, that make use of in-
built browser functionality).
2.5.1 Plugin based frameworks
Microsoft Silverlight
Microsoft (2010) on their official website defined Microsoft Silverlight as follows,
"a free web-browser plug-in that enables interactive media experiences, rich
business applications and immersive mobile apps". It not just used to design
interactive applications for web but also for desktop and mobile phones, its platform
independent as it works on all major Operating Systems and supports all the existing
browsers. Its first version "Silverlight 1" was first released 4 years back in 2007, the
running version "Silverlight 4" with its tools was released in 2010 and "Silverlight
5" has been announced, will be launched by the end of 2011 with a additional
improved features for the users.
46
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Adobe Flex
Adobe Systems Inc. (2011)defined Flex as, "a highly productive, free, open source
framework for building expressive mobile, web and desktop applications." Even
Flex is platform independent , its first version was released in 2004 and the running
version "Adobe Flash Builder and Flex 4" was released in 2010.
2.5.2 Non-Plugin (JavaScript ) based framework
AJAX
Asynchronous JavaScript and XML also popularly known as AJAX is a concept
which comprises of mixed technologies, its affiliated with building user-friendly,
interactive web applications and a technique which asynchronously extracts data
from the server using XMLHttpRequest object, without reloading or refreshing the
web page, i.e. its skips meddling with the current page and the white screen which
used to appear every time when a web page designed in HTML was reloaded. It a
combination of the following technologies: HTML and CSS for designing and
styling the pages and DOM with the help of JavaScript for "interactive" and "rich
interface".
AJAX wasn't the first approach associated with Asynchronous loading of web pages,
it was first introduced with the launch of Java applets in 1995, then in 1996 with
Internet Explorer's (IE) iframe and in 1999 Microsoft's inclusion of XMLHTTP
ActiveX control to IE 5 enabled the same, which was then adopted by other browsers
like, Mozilla 0.1, Netscape 7, and Apple's Safari 1.2(Apple Inc, 2011).
Even with all the functionalities AJAX has to offer it cannot be compared with the
multimedia support, graphics manipulation, audio/video support and cross browser
47
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
support and other such "rich" and "interactive" experiences the plug-in based
frameworks have to offer.
Experts of the software development industry believe that Rich Internet Applications
and it's development frameworks still have a long way to go. They are gaining
popularity day by day and people are naturally making themselves
familiarised/accustomed with the evolving technological changes and the world of
richer web applications, as it's the future of web development. And, RIAs are not just
gaining popularity among users but also developers who are trying to make the best
use of available resources (technologies) to construct even more richer applications
for the web, and also to, build more sophisticated RIA development
platforms/frameworks which help them do so.
2.6 Comparison of RIA Development Frameworks
As RIAs and there development frameworks are relatively new concepts, not many
evaluation systems exist in the literature for carrying out a comparison between
different RIA platforms. In the 1990s, anything close to an Rich Internet
Applications were Hypermedia Applications, this is the reason why some
hypermedia evaluation systems were also looked into.
In 1998, an evaluation system was proposed for Hypermedia Application
Development and Management Systems (HADMS) in relation to specific application
requirements, this system made use of a set of evaluation criteria for comparing
HADMS (Christodoulou et. al, 1998).
Koch (1999) conducted a comparative study of methods used for developing
hypermedia applications, it not just made comparisons between different
48
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
methodologies used for hypermedia development, but also compared various web
development methodologies.
Then in 2005, RIA was no longer a new concept to the world. It had been a while
that the web application developers and programmers were talking about designing
RIAs and RIA development frameworks. And, finally some set of
criteria's/evaluation systems were discussed and introduced on the basis of which
RIA frameworks can be compared.
Grosso (2005) came up with a list of attributes, that he said a "rich internet
application" should have. This list of attributes that he proposed were un- suitable
for today's generation of RIAs, as they are far more advanced and this list only
covered basic attributes of RIAs when they were first launched. Grosso (2005) also
said that, the this list of criteria doesn't include a lot of technological guidance.
In 2007, Forrester Research wrote a paper for application development & program
management professionals, in which they compared three RIA platforms, namely ,
AIR, Microsoft Silverlight and JavaFX. The comparison was based on the following
factors: Desktop OS support, Browser support, Video codec support, Audio codec
support, Download size(min/max), Pricing and licensing Target release dates
(Hammond and Goulde, 2007). Here only limited number of attributes were
compared.
UW E-Business Consortium (UWEBC - A division of UW E-Business Institute,
University of Wisconsin-Madison) (2005) wrote a paper named, " Rich Internet
Applications - Technical Comparison and Case Studies of AJAX, Flash and Java
based RIA". In this paper the UWEBC made use of the following list of criteria to
compare three RIA platforms: Graphical Richness, Container/Engine Footprint,
49
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Application Download, Audio/Video Support, Consistency on Different Computing
Environments, Server Requirements, Plug-in/Runtime Requirement on Client,
Development Challenge, Security Concerns and Cost. Here some additional factors
of comparison were seen, but, still not fully suitable for comparing different
platforms.
In 2009 a paper was released which defined a criterion system for differentiation
and evaluation of RIA architectures. Linnenfelser et al (2009) defined the system as,
"a tool for decision makers to compare such platforms and to help them select an
appropriate one for a specific project". This system much better than previously
proposed approaches as it covered aspects important for carrying out comparison of
today's generation of RIAs.
50
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
The 'Criterion System' comprised of the following factors for evaluation of RIA
frameworks:
Figure2: Criterion System
This list of criteria can help to evaluate technical factors of RIA frameworks. But,
over the period of time RIA development frameworks have evolved so much that it
won't be enough to cover all the technical factors, also this 'Criterion System' fails to
measure factors such as, the non-technical aspects ( user experience) and market
standing of RIA development frameworks, which also come under the research
objectives of this study. Thus, to meeting the aims and objectives of this research
project a new list of factors have to be designed which will help to evaluate, analyse
and compare technical/ non-technical characteristics and market standing of both the
RIA development framework.
51
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter's purpose is to define the methodology adapted by the researcher to
attain this research project's aims and objectives, i.e. to collect, compare and analyse
the various aspects (technical, non-technical - user experience and market standing)
associated with both the RIA development frameworks under study. It gives a
detailed description of methods which will be used by the researcher for data
collection, under which it explains the approach used for data collection, the types of
data and various data collection instruments which will be used by the researcher. It
also explains how the selection of target audience will be carried out.
3.2 RIA Framework Comparison Methodology
Not many evaluative systems exist in the literature that can help to carry out a
comparative study between RIA development frameworks, reason being RIAs are a
relatively new area in the field of technology. Thus, to achieve the aims and
objectives of this study, the researcher has combined existing approaches
(Hypermedia and RIA evaluation systems) to compare the two RIA development
frameworks under study. This approach divides the framework comparison process
in three parts, section one helps to compare the technical characteristics of the
frameworks in an attempt to find out which framework offers better technical
features and functionalities. Then in section two the non-technical aspect (user
experience of different features and functionalities) is compared and analysed to find
52
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
out which framework is more user friendly. And section three comprises of methods
to find out the standing and reputation of each framework in the current. Thus,
collection of data that helps to measure and evaluate the technical characteristics ,
user experience and market standing of both the RIA development frameworks,
sums up the approach (RIA Framework Comparison Methodology) used by the
researcher to carry out this comparison.
As mentioned in the above paragraph, not many RIA frameworks evaluation systems
(methodology) exist in the literature that could have been used to fulfil this study's
aims and objectives. Thus, the evaluation systems proposed in 1990s for comparing
hypermedia application development systems and some of the few systems proposed
for evaluation of RIA development frameworks were combined and used by the
researcher to come up with a new approach for comparing different RIA platforms.
In 2005, RIA was no longer a new concept to the world. It had been a while that the
web application developers and programmers were talking about designing RIAs and
RIA development frameworks. And, finally some set of criteria's/evaluation systems
were discussed and introduced on the basis of which RIA frameworks can be
compared.
A list of criteria's were introduced by Preciado and Sanchez (2005), their approach
made use of fifteen already existing methodologies form the web, multimedia and
hypermedia background to structure a new list of attributes (Comparison Parameters)
that could be used to compare RIAs. And, finally Linnenfelser et. al (2010) came up
with a "Criterion System" that allowed evaluation and comparison of different RIA
platforms. These two systems were mainly used by this research project as they
53
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
covered maximum attributes that were vital for carrying out a comparison between
this generation's RIA platforms.
Thus, after going through the literature the above mentioned RIA evaluation
methodologies were used to list comparison parameters, which were close enough to
what this study required. Using just one of these methodologies wouldn't help to
attain this study's purpose, as it only facilitated comparison of limited factors
associated with RIAs. So, in order to achieve the aims and objectives of this study,
existing methodologies were combined to construct a suitable methodology for
carrying out this study.
Different attributes/criteria were gathered and grouped together as per requirements.
The first set of attributes will help to measure and compare all the technical aspects
associated with the frameworks, i.e. various features , functionalities and tools it has
to offer. Then, the second set of attributes were the non-technical aspects (user
experience) which will help to measure and compare the user friendliness of both the
frameworks. And, to compare the market standing and reputation of both the
frameworks, different online sources will be used.
For gathering data, the following instruments will be used, the technical aspects
evaluation system (which uses both the frameworks official websites) for technical
data collection, questionnaire for non-technical data collection and market standing
evaluation system (which uses different online sources) for gathering information on
the reputation of both the RIA frameworks in the current market. And this gathered
data will subjected to quantitative data analysis, which will help to answer the
research questions, such as which RIA framework offers better tools and features,
54
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
which framework is more user friendly and which framework has better
status/reputation in the market.
3.3 Data collection
3.3.1 Data collection approach and data types
Generally the following are two approaches for carrying out a research study:
Deductive Approach
Inductive Approach
Figure 3 and 4: Skinner (2010)
As shown in the above figures, Skinner (2010) defined Deductive as a 'top-down'
approach, where you start with a theory or hypothesis, make observations and
conclude if your data confirms or rejects it and Inductive as a 'bottom-up' approach,
where theory is developed on the basis of what conclusions can be draw from
collected data. An Inductive approach is used for this study.
Also, the following two approaches can be used for research data analysis:
55
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Qualitative Approach: This approach deals with assessing people's opinions,
perceptions and point of views. It helps to answer why something happened?
Quantitative Approach: This approach deals with measuring the responses
collected from the participants, answers to - "How many?"
This research study makes use of the standard quantitative approach for carrying out
the analysis of technical aspects, non-technical aspects and market standing of both
the frameworks.
The types of data that will be used for analysis are: data collected from the technical
aspects evaluation system used for comparing technical characteristics of both the
frameworks, data collected from the questionnaire for comparing the non-technical
characteristics of both the frameworks and data collected from the market standing
evaluation system to assess the reputation of the frameworks in the current market.
Then all the gathered data will be analysed and compared to find out which RIA
development frameworks has better tools and functionalities to offer to its users,
which one ranks better in terms of usability of different features and which one is
more reputed in the market. Finally, all the gathered data will be correlated to give a
final conclusion showing, which RIA framework is superior than the other, all
aspects combined.
3.3.2 Data Collection Instruments
The following instruments are used for data collection:
Technical aspects evaluation system
Questionnaire
Market standing evaluation system
56
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
3.3.2.1 Technical aspects evaluation system
This system was designed to conduct the evaluation of technical characteristics
associated with both the frameworks. To carry out this evaluation process , first
information on all the important tools, features and functionalities a RIA
development framework can offer, will be collected. Then, a table will be generated
where all of these collected technical features and functionalities will be listed,
followed by its description, explaining why these characteristics were important for
designing a RIA. Then another table will be created for data collection and analysis,
this table shows in which of the two frameworks the listed technical features are
present or absent. One more important thing about this evaluation system is a
"marked star", this star indicates which characteristic if present in both is better than
the other framework and no star indicates that the particular characteristic is equally
good in both the frameworks.
3.3.2.2 Questionnaire
The purpose of designing this questionnaire is, evaluation of non-technical
characteristics (user experience) associated with each framework. A research was
conducted on what characteristics would be best suitable for the purpose of
measuring users experience of using different functionalities these frameworks have
to offer. After careful observation a set of 10 questions were designed for this
purpose. A software called survey monkey will then used for construction, online
distribution and result collection of this questionnaire. The links of this questionnaire
will be sent to its target audience via emails, social networking website (facebook)
and posted on some top RIA developer forums. And the participants will be asked to,
57
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
rate each of these 10 characteristics in terms of its usability on a scale of 1 to 5,
where 1 represents "not user friendly" and 5 represents "extremely user friendly".
3.3.2.3 Market standing evaluation system
The purpose of this system is to assess both the frameworks standing/reputation in
the current market. And this system makes use of the following ways to do so:
Evaluation of the interest level of people in both the RIA development
frameworks by comparing their web search volume patterns across specific
regions and over time frames with the help of Google Insights for Search.
Evaluation of both the frameworks worldwide market penetration by
gathering data on both the frameworks plug-in version support and market
share of existing web browser plug-ins, from statowl.com.
Evaluation and comparison of number of books related to both the
frameworks available on eBay.com and amazon.com.
Evaluation and comparison of the number of discussions/threads related to
each framework on their respective official websites.
Evaluation and comparison of its popularity on social networking website
such as facebook.com.
58
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
3.3.4 Selection of Target Audience
This section discusses how the participants for answering the online questionnaire
will be identified, approached and recruited.
How will they be Identified?
Main criteria for identifying participants is based upon the participants current
knowledge of RIA development frameworks and its relevancy to the research topic.
Their experience of working with both the frameworks and their understanding of
the various technical / non - technical characteristics associated with both the
frameworks will be taken under consideration. People working in the IT industry
will be targeted, as they are familiar with different application development
platforms.
How will they be approached?
There is no approximate value to the number of people that will be approached for
participating in this research project. Thus, the details of the survey will be
forwarded to as many people as possible. Participants will be contacted through the
medium of e-mails and social networking website (facebook). A software called
Survey Money will be used to design an online survey/questionnaire, unique survey
links will be created to gather and monitor responses received from the participants
via different channels, such as email and facebook. The survey links along with this
research project's information sheet will be sent to personal contacts working in the
IT industry who will then forward the link to their colleagues. All the respondents
who decide to participate in this study will help to answer questions associated with
the user experience of different features and functionalities of both the frameworks.
59
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
How will they be recruited?
The participants will be recruited based on their experience and knowledge of the
research topic. A detailed description about the survey along with all the information
the participants might need to know before they answer the survey questions will be
provided to them in an information sheet which is forwarded with the survey link
during the test selection process. This selection process will help to filter the ones
who have current knowledge of RIA development frameworks, experience of
working with both the frameworks and have understanding of various technical/non-
technical characteristics associated with both the frameworks. The ones who respond
positively will be recruited. These respondents can then proceed by filling the online
questionnaire.
60
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, first, the results of the technical aspects evaluation system gathered
from each frameworks official website are presented. These results are used for
comparing various technical characteristics associated with both the frameworks.
Then, the results of the questionnaire used for the non-technical (user experience)
aspects comparison are presented. These results were gathered from 34 respondents
who took part in this study by answering the online survey. And finally the results of
some aspects that come under the market standing evaluation system are presented,
which play a vital role in comparing both the framework's current market reputation
4.2 Results of Technical Aspects Evaluation System
In this section results of the technical aspects evaluation system used for gathering
information on various technical characteristics associated with RIA development
frameworks/platforms are presented. It comprises of the following two sub-sections:
List of Characteristics
Results and Description
4.2.1 List of Characteristics
After gathering information on various vital tools, features and functionalities a RIA
development framework can offer, the researcher came up with the following list of
61
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
27 characteristics, on which the comparison of the technical aspects can be based
upon.
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
QUESTIONS
Support for 3D Effects
Does it have a feature that enables display of 3D graphics in web applications?
Animations,
Transformations &
Effects
Does it have any features that support elements like fade, zoom, drop shadow, rotate and hundreds of other available effects for designing a RIA?
Browser/Operating
Systems
What all browsers are compatible with it?
Support for Charts &
Graphs
Is there any support for displaying charts and graphs?
User Interface (UI)
Controls & Components
Does it have graphical UI Controls & Components?
CSS Styling
Can different application components be styled using the Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)?
Data Binding
Does it have a feature that helps to bind two data sources together, in order to maintain data synchronization?
Data Grid
Does it support the data grid component and allow pagination?
Deep Linking
Does it provide support for deep linking?
Deep Zoom
Does it support the Deep Zoom functionality?
62
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Drag-to-Install
Can an application/widget be dragged from the browser window and installed onto the desktop?
File Upload
Does it provide a feature which facilitates uploading of single or multiple files on the application?
GPU Acceleration
Does it make use of Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) for altering or manipulating computer graphics?
Hardware Platform
Support
How many hardware platforms do the designed applications support/run on?
High Definition (HD)
Video Support
Does it have HD Video support?
Application Localization
Does it facilitate localization/translation of the software application to different languages?
Multi-Page Support
Can multi-page applications be created?
Multi-threading Support
Is there support for the multi-threading functionality?
Offline Access Support
Can the created applications be accessed outside the browser i.e. in the absence of Internet connection?
Printing
Do the applications provide internal support for printing?
Programming Languages
How many programming languages does the framework support for developing applications?
Push Technology
Is push technology or server push supported?
RSS Feeds
Do the frameworks have a built-in support for RSS feeds?
63
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Themes
Can different themes be used to alter the applications different visual components?
Unit testing
Does the platform have any unit testing framework for performing unit tests?
Webcam & Microphone
Support
Do the applications provide support for webcams and microphones?
Data Validation
Does the platform provide built-in support for validation of data entry without page refreshes?
4.2.2 Results and Description
3D Effects
Presence of this feature indicates whether the framework can enable display of 3D
graphics in their designed applications or not. Both Flex and Silverlight support this
feature.
Animation, Transformation and Effects
These features indicate if the framework provides support for different animations
and effects like, fade, zoom, drop shadow etc to be displayed in their designed
applications. Its present in both the frameworks but with a slight difference. In Flex
frame-based animation model is used by flash, where one needs to calculate how
many frames particular amount will take, then determine the matrices for each frame.
On the other hand, Silverlight makes use of WPF animation model which is time
based. One just has to define start and end conditions and doesn't have to deal with
matrices. Much easier and better than frame based method Flash uses.
64
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Browser/ Operating Systems
Flex applications can be deployed across all major browsers and operating systems.
Even Silverlight provides support for all popular browsers like Firefox 3+, Safari 3+,
Internet Explorer 6,7,8 and 9 and also Google's Chrome 4+.
Charts & Graphs
This component is very useful in business scenarios for analyzing complex data.
Flex provides a wide range of chart types that are easy to use, it facilitates powerful
reporting and easy data analysis.
Silverlight too provides support for charts and graphs that help transform and represent
business related data into interactive, rich, animated charts that simplifies the process of
analyzing complex data.
User Interface (UI) Controls & Components
These play a vital role in designing application forms. It helps to design a high-
quality, rich and intuitive UI as per user's demands.
Flex has 30+ controls of its own and it also makes use of many other open-source
components available for designing forms.
Silverlight has 60+ customizable, skinnable controls/components of its own, and like
Flex it also makes use of other available open-source components for building
forms.
65
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
CSS Styling
The purpose of CSS also known as Cascading Style Sheets is to design, manage and
control the presentation semantics of web pages.
Flex has built-in CSS capabilities which are used for designing and developing UI
layout.
Silverlight uses XAML markup language to create the UI layout instead of CSS.
Data Binding
This can be defined as follows, a functionality that binds two data sources together
such that their variables are dependent on one another, and an update in the value of
one, changes/updates the value of other automatically and thus the data is
synchronised.
In Flex, a code is generated using Flash Builder that binds data returned from a
service operation (source) to the user interface (UI) component (destination) that
displays the data, and it provides several ways to do so. The user can either drag and
drop the service operation option from the Data/Service view on to the UI
component or can select an operation to bind to the component from the bind to data
dialog (Adobe, 2010).
It's one of the key technologies of Silverlight, facilitates two way binding of data,
this means that, when data in the data object (source) is updated these changes are
reflected in the UI element (destination) and vice versa. Like, Adobe Flex even this
platform makes use of different data binding techniques (msdn, 2011).
66
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Data Grid
Data Grid is another component useful in business related applications, where
there's a need to display large number of rows together, but sending them all together
to the client is a time consuming task and also wastage of bandwidth, this
component helps to limit the display of rows per page.
In Flex , this characteristic allows to format/edit data represented in a table by
providing features that allow, resizing, sorting and customizing column layouts,
including hidable columns (Adobe, 2011). It doesn't have a built-in support for
pagination, but it can be achieved with the help of third party components.
This feature helps to present data in a tabular format and facilitates adding, deleting,
filtering, grouping, selection and sorting of data from its associated data source
(Barua, 2010). It also provides in-built support for pagination unlike Flex.
Deep Linking
Deep links are basically hyperlinks, which help to address a specific page or image
on a website.
Flex provides support for deep linking, it's a feature that allows the user to easily
browse/navigate through their interaction history within the application.
Even Silverlight provides support for deep linking.
Deep Zoom
Microsoft developed this technology, it provides the ability to view large
resolution/collection of images interactively. It facilitates smooth zooming and
panning of images without affecting the web application's performance.
67
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
In Flex, there's no built-in support for this functionality but it's provided by a third-
party component.
It's a Microsoft developed feature. It is the fastest, smoothest zooming technology on
the web, which brings the highest resolution images and frame rates with the lowest
load time to users, it also enables the display of thousands of items simultaneously
which gives the designers/developers new opportunities to create rich and innovative
navigation paradigms for the applications as well as the web (Microsoft, 2011).
Drag-to-Install
This feature is quite interesting, it enables an application/widget to be dragged from
the browser window and simply dropped and installed onto the desktop. Thus, even
if the client is offline that particular application can be used on the desktop. It's an
excellent feature, it was supported in JavaFX platform but unfortunately its absent in
both these frameworks.
File Upload
In Flex, flash provides the ability to upload or download files between client and
server.
In Silverlight, this isn't an in-built functionality, but there are third party software
available that facilitate single or multiple file upload.
GPU Acceleration
With the help of this functionality, the application's graphics can be accelerated, in
order to provide users with a rich and enhanced graphical experience.
68
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
The Stage3D APIs (Application Programming interface) for Adobe Flash Player are
a set of GPU-accelerated APIs that enable advanced 2D and 3D capabilities across
multiple screens and devices (desktop, mobile, TV) (Adobe Labs, 2011).
In Silverlight 4 in-built support for GPU acceleration was missing and it was only
possible with the help of third party components. But, one of the biggest addition in
the beta version of Silverlight 5, is the support for GPU accelerated videos and 3D
graphics (msdn, 2011). But, as this functionality is new in comparison to Flex, it
will take time for it to reach the standards Flex has already achieved.
Hardware Platform
Both Flex and Silverlight applications can run on desktops, laptops and mobile
phones.
High Definition Video
Flex provides support for H.264 high definition video.
Silverlight facilitates smooth streaming and viewing of H.264 HD videos.
Application Localization
In simple words it can be described as a feature which helps to translate a particular
application to other languages, so that it can be used around the world. It's the little
drop-down selection option we see on websites, where we can choose the language
we wish to view the website in.
Flex provides built-in support for 10 languages. But, on the other hand Silverlight
provides localization enhancements with bidirectional text, right-to-left support,
69
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
complex scripts such as Arabic, Hebrew, Thai and 30+ other languages are also
supported (Microsoft, 2011).
Multi-Page
This functionality helps to create multi-page applications.
In Flex one can achieve this by using ViewStack navigator container.
And, it can also be done in Silverlight with the help of Navigation Application
Template provided in Visual Studio.
Multi-threading
This feature allows an operating system to execute multiple threads (parts of
program) simultaneously, in simple terms it can be called multi-tasking i.e.
performing two tasks at the same time.
There is no support for multi-threading in Flex, which means that user cannot carry
out two or more tasks at the same time and until the current task is not complete, the
user cannot move to the next task.
But, this is not a problem in applications created using Silverlight. Here, users can
perform multiple tasks at the same time as this feature is supported.
Offline Access
Allows to access an application outside the browser, in the absence of Internet.
Adobe AIR enables developers to use HTML, JavaScript, Adobe Flash and Flex
technologies with ActionScript for creating standalone applications that can be used
outside the browser (Adobe Systems Inc. , 2011).
70
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Even applications created using Silverlight support this and can be accessed in the
absence of an Internet connection.
Printing
Flex designed applications provide the print functionality with support for all basic
print features.
Silverlight also provides an excellent support for printing, it helps to create a virtual
print view, which enables the application to provide print-friendly documents
(Microsoft, 2011).
Programming Languages
Flex makes use of 2 programming languages, such as MXML and ActionScript for
designing applications.
Silverlight applications can be written using more than 2 languages, basicall any of
the .NET languages, such as C#, JScript.NET Visual Basic.NET etc.
Push Technology
A technology where central server requests for or pushes data to the client, from its a
pre-subscribed information channels.
Flex provides support for this technology with the help of BlazeDS that enables
developers to easily connect to the back-end distributed data and push data in real
time to applications designed in Flex, to make user experience more intuitive and
responsive (Adobe Systems Inc., 2011).
This feature is also supported in Silverlight, which makes use of two types of push
technology (Brown, 2010) :
71
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
WCF duplex services
TCP sockets
RSS Feeds
RSS (Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site Summary) can be defined as a way,
that websites use to provide a summary of their overall content, for example: news
articles, blog entries, headlines etc, links that provide quick and clutter free access to
important/useful information for the users (Adobe Systems Incorporated, 2011).
Flex applications support this functionality, with the help of as3syndicationlib (free
ActionScript library). This library hides the difference between the formats so that
the user can parse not just RSS but any kind of feed (Google, 2011).
Reading and displaying of RSS Feeds is supported in Silverlight too. The
SyndicationFeed class in Silverlight makes it possible to parse RSS and ATOM feed.
Themes
It defines the look and feel of application's visual components, it can be as simple as
changing a colour scheme or font of the application's components or entire re-
skinning of all the components of the application (Adobe, 2011).This feature is
supported in both the frameworks, with the help of which the applications different
visual components/controls can be modified and stylized.
Unit Testing
Adobe Flex makes use of the framework called FlexUnit which is designed for Flex
and ActionScript applications and libraries, it comes with a graphical test runner
which provides user with great freedom for testing applications. It allows the users to
72
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
edit and generate repeatable tests that can be run from scripts or directly within Flash
Builder and provides the following functionalities (Adobe, 2011):
create/run unit test cases and unit test suites.
navigate to source code from the Flex Unit Results view.
Silverlight makes use of the Unit Test Framework, which is built to simplify the unit
testing process for the users. It provides users with the following (msdn, 2008):
simple unit test that run inside a browser
enables testing of different rich controls and the entire platform
rich in-browser logging
and basic asynchronous testing support.
Webcam and Microphone
Both the applications provide support for webcam and microphone. In Flex, it can be
used for creating a real-time chat application, playing microphone audio locally,
capturing microphone audio for local processing and runtime microphone support
(Adobe, 2011). Silverlight also provides webcam and microphone support, which
can be used in applications designed for chats and providing customer service.
Data Validation
It's an extremely important feature for applications that are data driven, when user's
enter some information on the application, such as telephone number, name, zip
code, credit card number etc, this process makes sure that only valid/correct data is
entered and stored in the database. Both the platforms provide support this feature.
73
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
4.3 Results of Online Survey
In this section, the results of the online survey gathered from respondents who
participated in this study are presented. The purpose of this survey was to gather
information on non-technical characteristics (user's experience of using all the
tools, features and functionality) associated with both the frameworks. This study
required participants who had knowledge and experience of working with both the
RIA development frameworks (Adobe Flex & Microsoft Silverlight). In total, 34
people participated in this study and 32 completed the entire online questionnaire, by
answering all the 10 questions. The snapshots of the response summary are given
below:
74
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Figure 5:Response Summary Collected from Survey Monkey
75
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Figure 6: Response Summary Collected from Survey Monkey
76
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Figure 7: Response Summary Collected from Survey Monkey
77
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Figure 8: Response Summary Collected from Survey Monkey
78
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Figure 9: Response Summary Collected from Survey Monkey
79
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
4.4 Results of the market standing evaluation system
In this section the results of the market standing evaluation system are presented.
The purpose of this system was to gather information on different aspects that will
help to evaluate the standing and reputation of both the frameworks in the current
market.
Information on some of these aspects such as, web search volume patterns associated
with both the frameworks and their worldwide market penetration was directly
available in the form of charts and graphs, which is why its presented in the next
chapter.
Thus, leaving only information (results) of the remaining aspects to be gathered and
presented in this chapter, which is as follows:
CATEGORIES
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
No. of threads/discussions
on each frameworks official
website
54,868 threads
90,629 threads
No. of related books
available on ebay.co.uk
89 results
77 results
No. of related books
available on amazon.co.uk
469 results
741 results
No. of Likes on each
framework's online
community on
facebook.com
63,041 likes
2,521 likes
80
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
CHAPTER 5
DATA ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to carry out the analysis of the collected data. First, the
results of the technical aspects evaluation system used for comparing various
technical characteristics, gathered from each frameworks official website are
analysed. Followed by the analysis of online survey results, used for the non-
technical (user experience) aspects comparison. These results are gathered from 34
participants, who took part in this study by answering the online questionnaire. Then,
the data collected from various online sources to evaluate the market
standing/reputation of both the RIA development frameworks is presented and
analysed. And, to sum up, all the gathered data/results are correlated to make a final
overall comparison / to give a final conclusion showing, which RIA framework is
superior than the other when all aspects are combined.
5.2 Technical Characteristics
In this section, analysis of technical characteristics will be carried out, for which the
information gathered with the help of the technical aspects evaluation system will be
utilized to compare and evaluate which framework provides support for better and
maximum number of technical characteristics.
81
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
5.2.1 Table of Comparison
The following table of comparison will show which technical characteristics are
present or absent in both the frameworks. Also, the star indicates which feature if
present in both is better than the other framework and no stars indicate that the
particular feature is equally good in both the frameworks.
KEY
= Present = Absent = Marked feature is better than the other RIA
framework
CATEGORIES
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
3D Effects
Animations, Transformations &
Effects
Frame-based animation model is used by flash.
Uses WPF animation model,
its time based.
Browser/Operating Systems
Deploys across all major browsers and operating
systems.
Supports all the popular browsers like Firefox 3+,
Safari 3+, Internet Explorer 6,7,8 and 9 and also Google's
Chrome 4+.
Support for Charts & Graphs
User Interface (UI) Controls &
Components
Uses 30+ controls of its own
and other open-source components.
Uses 60+ components of its own, plus more open-source
components.
CSS Styling
Data Binding
82
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
One way data binding Two way data binding
Data Grid
No built-in support for
pagination
Provides built-in support for
pagination
Deep Linking
Deep Zoom
Third-party component is
used.
Drag-to-Install
File Upload
Built-in functionality
Third part components are
used.
GPU Acceleration
Stage3D APIs are used.
Third party components are
used.
Hardware Platform
Desktops, laptops and mobile
phones.
Desktops, laptops and mobile
phones.
High Definition Video
H.264 high definition video
Smooth streaming and
viewing of H.264 HD videos
Application Localization
10 Languages
30+ Languages
Multi-Page Support
Multi-threading
Offline Access Support
83
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Printing
Programming Languages
MXML
ActionScript
All .NET Languages
Push Technology
RSS Feeds
Themes
Unit testing
Webcam & Microphone
Data Validation
5.2.2 Overall Support for Technical Characteristics
In the table given below the results (no. of starred technical aspects and total no. of
technical aspects supported by both the frameworks) for the evaluation of technical
characteristics of both the frameworks are presented. Here, the average value of the
results collected i.e. overall technical support is also calculated to find out which
framework provides better technical support.
CATEGORIES
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
No. of technical aspects
supported
25
26
No. of starred technical aspects
4
8
TOTAL AVERAGE
14.5 (46%)
17 (54%)
84
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Findings suggested that Microsoft Silverlight provides superior support for technical
characteristics than Adobe Flex, which means that, it has much more and better
tools, features/functionalities to offer in a RIA development process.
5.3 Non-Technical Characteristics
In this section, analysis of non - technical characteristics (user's experience with
different tools and features these frameworks offer) will be carried out, for which the
information gathered from 34 respondents who participated in the online survey will
be utilized. This online survey comprised of 10 different characteristics (features &
functionalities) , which the users had to rate on a scale of 1 to 5, in terms of its
usability. First an individual analysis of all the 10 characteristics is carried out
followed by its grouped analysis, which will helps to analyse, compare and
determine which framework provides superior user experience than the other.
Support for Technical Characteristics
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
gg54%
46%
85
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
5.3.1 Individual Analysis
In this section, results of all the 10 characteristics/questions used for comparing the
user experience of both the frameworks are presented and analysed one at a time.
5.3.1.1 Graphical Richness
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user facilitated
display of much richer graphics.
Flex is a clear winner here with an average rating of 4.3. Silverlight received an
average rating of 3.65 in this category.
5.3.1.2 User Interface Elements
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user provided
more competence in modification and manipulation of the User Interface (UI)
elements.
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
Graphical Richness
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
86
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Again, Flex received a superior rating, with a difference of 0.68 points more than the
average rating received by Silverlight.
5.3.1.3 Multimedia Support
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user provided
better support for the different multimedia elements (animation, audio, video, text
and image).
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
User Interface Elements
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Multimedia Support
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
87
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
In this category, second maximum difference was seen between the average points
received by both the frameworks. Here, Flex beat Silverlight with a difference of 0.9
points.
5.3.1.4 Multimedia Support
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user provided
superior support for carrying out unit tests.
Here, a close competition was seen between both the frameworks. As, least amount
of difference in their average ratings i.e. 0.38 was recorded for this category.
5.3.1.5 Designer/Developer Tools
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user facilitated
ease of learning and efficiency in usage of various tools these frameworks offered
for application development and testing.
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
Testing
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
88
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Silverlight is a clear winner in this category, with an average rating of 4.56, it beat
Flex with a difference of 0.69 points.
5.3.1.6 Costs
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user had
least/minimal expenses associated with its tools.
Flex won in this category with an average rating of 4.12, which is 0.77 points more
than the average rating received by Silverlight.
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
Designer/Developer Tools
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Costs
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
89
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
5.3.1.7 Performance
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user provided
better performance in terms of the application's start-up time, seamlessness of the
start-up procedure, download time to the browser, bandwidth usage/speed and
modularization of the download/start-up time.
Here Silverlight lost to Flex by a difference of 0.88 points.
5.3.1.8 Refactoring & Code-Completion Support
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user was superior
than the other, when it come to restructuring the code by giving it more expressive
architecture, which improves readability, perks up maintainability, reduces
complexity and enhances extensibility of the code.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Performance
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
90
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Silverlight beat Flex in this category, received an average rating of 4.44, which is
0.89 points more than what Flex received.
5.3.1.9 Migration
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user provided
better support for the following elements:
Integration with existing web applications
Provision for using deep links into workflows
Re-use of existing beans
Remote access for existing controls and components
Sharing of session data
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Refactoring & Code-Completion Support
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
91
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
This is only category where maximum amount of difference was seen between the
average rating received by both the frameworks. Here, Silverlight lost to Flex by a
difference of 1.28 points.
5.3.1.10 Overall User Experience
This feature helped to analyse, which framework according to the user provided an
overall richer designing and learning experience.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Migration
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
Overall User Experience
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
92
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Close competition was seen in this category as well. Here, Flex beat Silverlight by a
difference of 0.39 points by receiving an average rating of 4.16.
5.3.2 Grouped Analysis
In this section, all the 10 characteristics are analysed together find out which
framework provides over all superior user experience over the other framework.
This line chart helps to compare all the 10 characteristics together. It's clearly seen
that, most of the respondents rated Microsoft Silverlight higher in just two
categories, which are Designer/Developer Tools (C5) and Refactoring & Code-
Completion Support (C8). In rest of the categories, Adobe Flex was rated more by
maximum respondents.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
93
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
5.3.3 Over all Support for Non-Technical Characteristics
The following table lists numerical results of all 10 characteristics which were
designed for the purpose of comparing both the framework's user experience of
different characteristics.
NON-TECHNICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
(USER EXPERIENCE)
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
Graphical Richness
4.30
3.65
User Interface Elements
4.30
3.62
Multimedia Support
4.58
3.68
Testing
4.09
3.71
Designer/Developer Tools
3.87
4.56
Costs
4.12
3.35
Performance
4.28
3.40
Refactoring &Code-Completion
3.60
4.44
Migration
4.31
3.03
Overall User Experience
4.16
3.77
TOTAL AVERAGE
4.161 (53%)
3.721 (47%)
Here, the average value of the ratings given by the participants for each category are
displayed, with the help of which the total average of all the 10 characteristics are
calculated to find out which framework is better than the other .
94
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
The results of the total calculated average suggest that, according to the respondents
Adobe Flex provides much superior user experience than Microsoft Silverlight.
5.4 Market Standing
In this section, analysis of information gathered for evaluating both the frameworks
reputation in the current market will be carried out, for which the data collected with
the help of the market standing evaluation system is utilized to make comparisons
between both the frameworks.
The following factors are compared and analysed in this section:
Framework's worldwide market penetration
Framework's global web search interest
Related books available on ebay.com and amazon.com
Related Threads/Discussions on each framework's official website
Framework's popularity on social networking website (facebook.com)
Support for Non-Technical Characteristics
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
gg47%jv53%
95
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
5.4.1 Worldwide Market Reputation
In this section the evaluation of both the framework's runtime market reputation is
carried out with the help of information gathered from statowl.com. First each
framework's individual worldwide plug-in version support is analysed and
compared. Then, the comparison of global market penetration of both the
framework's plug-ins with other existing web browser plug-ins such as, Java, Quick
Time, Windows Media Player.
5.4.1.1 Silverlight Plug-in Version Support
In this section the market share of different working versions of Microsoft
Silverlight plug-in are compared with the help of data collected from statowl.com.
For carrying out this comparison, worldwide support received by its different
versions over the last six months was analysed.
Six categories were considered for this purpose: Version 1x, Version 2x, Version 3x,
Version 4x, Undetected and the Others category.
Undetected category was for the ones which couldn't be listed under either of the
categories but was important for this comparison, others category was for plug-in
versions apart from 1x,2x,3x and 4x
In the table given below, percentage values of market share of each category is
displayed month wise and an average value for each category is calculated to find
out which version of Silverlight plug-in received maximum user support.
96
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
SILVELIGHT
VERSION
FEB' 11
MAR'11
APR'11
MAY'11
JUN'11
JUL'11
TOTAL
AVG
Version 4x
53.68%
55.23%
57.07%
57.71%
59.51%
60.58%
57.13%
Undetected
37.93%
37.18%
36.00%
35.85%
34.61%
34.16%
36.05%
Version 3x
6.66%
6.04%
5.50%
5.09%
4.64%
4.01%
5.40%
Version 2x
1.36%
1.22%
1.10%
1.06%
0.97%
0.92%
1.12%
Version 1x
0.36%
0.33%
0.31%
0.28%
0.24%
0.21%
0.29%
Other
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.02%
0.03%
0.03%
0.01%
Global Microsoft Silverlight Version Support
Figure 10: Report on Microsoft Silverlight Version Support (statowl.com, 2011)
Findings suggested that, currently the 4x Version of Silverlight have maximum
number of users worldwide, 57% chose this version over other working versions of
Silverlight. Least support was recorded for the others category with an average value
of 0.01%.
97
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Second highest support was seen for the Undetected version's category with 36.05%.
A huge difference of 30.65% was recorded between the second highest (Undetected)
and the third highest (Version 3x) category and very low support between a range of
0.2 to 1.2% was recorded for the older versions (Versions 1x and 2x) of Silverlight.
5.4.1.2 Flash Plug-in Version Support
In this section the market share of different working versions of Flash Player plug-in
are compared with the help of data collected from statowl.com. The worldwide
support received by its different versions over the time frame of last six months was
analysed for this purpose.
Five categories were considered for carrying out this comparison: Version 6x,
Version 9x, Version 10x, Undetected and the Others category.
Again, undetected category was for the versions which couldn't be listed under
either of the categories, others category was for flash player plug-ins apart from
version 6x, 9x and 10x.
In the table given below, percentage values of market share of each category is
displayed month wise and an average value for each category is calculated to find
out which version of flash player plug-in received maximum support of the users.
FLASH VERSION
FEB' 11
MAR'11
APR'11
MAY'11
JUN'11
JUL'11
TOTAL
AVG
Version 10x
93.55%
93.09%
93.60%
93.17%
93.66%
93.40%
93.41%
Undetected
4.14%
4.72%
4.42%
4.70%
4.40%
4.72%
4.51%
Version 9x
1.84%
1.72%
1.54%
1.70%
1.54%
1.44%
1.64%
Version 6x
0.32%
0.32%
0.31%
0.32%
0.31%
0.29%
0.31%
Other
0.14%
0.14%
0.13%
0.11%
0.10%
0.15%
0.13%
98
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Global Flash Player Version Support
Figure 11: Report on Flash Player Version Support (statowl.com, 2011)
Findings suggested that, currently the latest version of flash player plug-in i.e.
version 10x have maximum number of users worldwide, 93% chose this version
over its other versions. Least support was recorded for the others category with an
average value of 0.13%.
A huge difference of 88.9% was seen between the support received by first highest
(Version 10x) and the second highest (Undetected) category and extremely low
support between a range of 0.3 to 1.7% was recorded for the older versions
(Versions 6x and 9x) of Flash Player.
5.4.5 Global Market Penetration of Web Browser Plug-ins
In this section the market share of different web browser plug-ins (WBP) are
compared and analysed with the help of data collected from statowl.com. Here,
99
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
global support received by these different web browser plug-ins over a time frame of
last six months was recorded and assessed for this purpose.
Five most popular WBPs were considered for carrying out this analysis: which are,
Flash Player, Silverlight, Java, Windows Media Player and Quicktime.
In the table given below, percentage values of market share of each WBP is
displayed in a month wise fashion and an average value of worldwide support
received by each plug-in is calculated to find out which plug-in received maximum
support of the users.
WEB BROWSER
PLUG-INS
FEB' 11
MAR'11
APR'11
MAY'11
JUN'11
JUL'11
TOTAL AVG
Flash Player
95.86%
95.28%
95.58%
95.30%
95.60%
95.28%
95.49%
Java
78.26%
77.80%
77.51%
76.51%
76.45%
75.89%
77.13%
Silverlight
62.07%
62.82%
64.00%
64.15%
65.39%
65.84%
63.95%
Windows Media
Player
64.95%
64.13%
63.20%
61.36%
60.36%
59.33%
62.37%
Quicktime
58.86%
58.10%
58.16%
57.27%
56.44%
56.50%
57.61%
Global Web Browser Plug-in Support
100
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Figure 12: Report on Web Browser Plug-in Market Share (statowl.com, 2011)
Here, Flash Player plug-in is the clear winner which has maximum number of users
worldwide, an average value of 95.49% suggested that this plug-in has the highest
usage rate among other web browser plug-ins.
Maximum difference of 37.88% was seen between Flash and Quicktime which
made Quicktime the least preferred plug-in among others with an average value of
57.61%.
A difference of 18.36% was recorded between Flash and Java which made Java the
second most preferred choice of users with an average value of 77.13%. And,
Silverlight was the third most preferred with an average value of 63.95%.
Finally, a close competition was seen between Silverlight and Windows Media
Player, suggested by the least difference of 1.58% between the average values of
both.
101
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
5.4.2 Global Web Search Interest
In this section, Google Insights for Search was used to evaluate and analyse the
interest level of people in both the RIA development frameworks by carrying out a
comparison between the history of web searches related to both the terms (Microsoft
Silverlight and Adobe Flex) made on Google.com.
This analysis is carried out in two parts:
Interest Over Time
Regional Interest and
In these subsections, the web search volume patterns related to both the frameworks
are compared across specific regions and over time frames to find out which
framework is more appealing and popular on a global scale.
5.4.2.1 Interest Over Time: Adobe Flex &Microsoft Silverlight
In this section data gathered from Google Insights is used for measuring and
evaluating interest level of people in both the RIA development frameworks. Google
Insights for Search have presented data from 2006 to 2011, but, as this study requires
latest data, results of only the last 6 months are compared here.
In the diagram given below a graph is plotted representing both the frameworks
relative interest over time. Here, x axis represents the time frame and y axis
represents level of interest among people.
102
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Figure 13: Interest Over Time (Google Insights for Search, 2011)
In the table given below, values depicting interest level of people related to each
framework in the past 6 months gathered from Google Insights are displayed. And,
an average of these values is calculated to find out which web search term
(Microsoft Silverlight or Adobe Flex) is more popular among people.
FRAMEWORKS
FEB'
11
MAR'11
APR'11
MAY'11
JUN'11
JUL'11
TOTAL
AVG
Adobe Flex
17.00
17.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
15.00
16.16(21%)
Microsoft
Silverlight
68.00
66.00
67.00
58.00
58.00
53.00
61.66(79%)
Microsoft Silverlight is a clear winner here with an average value of 61.66 (79%)
and this victory has been steady over the last 6 months. Highest difference (51.00
points) in the interest level of both was recorded in February 2011, which has
reduced over the time and the least difference (38.00 points) was recorded in July
2011.
103
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Even though interest level of people in Silverlight was much higher than that of Flex
through all these months, but, compared to Silverlight, their interest in Flex has been
more consistent, with an average difference between all its values for the past 6
months being 0.4 and that of Silverlight being 3.4.
5.4.2.2 Regional Interest: Adobe Flex &Microsoft Silverlight
In this section data gathered from Google Insights is used for measuring, comparing
and analysing regional interest of people in both the RIA development frameworks.
This analysis will be carried out by comparing top 10 regional ratings (search
volume index) received by both the frameworks.
The following diagrams represent top 10 regional interest values for Silverlight and
Flex, highest regional ratings for both the frameworks were recorded in India and
rest of the regions differed with different ratings.
Comparison of Interest Over Time
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
gg79%
hdfus
21%
104
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Figure 14: Regional Interest in Microsoft Silverlight (Google Insights for Search, 2011)
Figure 15: Regional Interest in Adobe Flex (Google Insights for Search, 2011)
In the table given below, top 10 regional interest ratings (search volume index in a
range of 0-100) allotted by Google Insights to both the frameworks are displayed .
And, an average of these regional ratings is calculated to find out which framework's
overall regional popularity/interest level exceeds than that of other.
TOP 10 COUNTRIES
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
1
100
50
2
28
48
3
24
46
4
23
44
5
21
43
6
17
42
105
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
7
17
41
8
17
40
9
17
39
10
16
37
TOTAL AVERAGE
28 (39%)
43 (61%)
Calculated results suggest that Silverlight is a clear winner when it comes to
regional popularity, as its average value was 15 points (22%) more than that of Flex.
Flex's regional rating was higher than that of Silverlight only for the top first country
and for the rest of the 9 countries, ratings received by Silverlight exceeded than that
of Flex with a average difference of 25 points.
5.4.3 Related books available on amazon and ebay
To learn more about the status and reputation of both the frameworks in the current
market, a comparison between the number of books related to Microsoft Silverlight
and Adobe Flex available on top online shopping websites (ebay.com and
amazon.com - America's largest online retailer ) was be carried out. This analysis
Comparison of Regional Interest
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
gg61%
39%
106
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
helped to find out the overall and individual popularity levels of both the frameworks
on these websites.
In the table given below, results of total number of books related to Microsoft
Silverlight and Adobe Flex available on each website are displayed and an average
value of these results is calculated to find out overall popularity i.e. which
framework is more well established and popular.
CATEGORIES
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
No. of related books
available on ebay.com
89
77
No. of related books
available on amazon.com
469
741
TOTAL AVERAGE
279 (6%)
409 (94%)
When titles of both the frameworks were fed in the search items box of both the
websites under the books category, the following results were found:
Individual Website Popularity
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Related books on amazon.com
Related books on ebay.com
Adobe Flex
Microsoft Silverlight
107
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Ebay listed 12 books more on Flex than Silverlight and totally opposite situation
was encountered on Amazon which listed 272 more books on Silverlight than Flex.
Overall Popularity
Percentage of the calculated average suggested that Microsoft Silverlight is more
popular and well established when it comes down to the comparison of books
available on these websites.
5.4.4 Threads/Discussions on framework's official websites
In this section a comparison between the total number of threads/discussions present
on each framework's official website was carried out.
Gathered results are displayed in the table below:
CATEGORIES
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
No. of threads/discussions
on each frameworks
official website
54,868 threads
(38%)
90,629 threads
(62%)
Comparison between the total number of threads/discussions
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
gg94%
6%
108
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Results suggested that Microsoft Silverlight's official website displayed a total of
90,629 (62%) threads listed under several categories which discussed different
characteristics and aspects associated with using this platform for developing rich
applications for the web. Silverlight was a clear winner here having 24% more
threads/discussions on their official website than that of Adobe Flex which only
listed a total of 54,868 (38%) threads on their website.
5.4.5 Popularity of facebook
In this section a comparison on the number of likes received by each framework is
carried out to find out which one among the two is more popular on facebook.com.
The table given below displays the number of likes received by each framework's
online community on facebook.com:
CATEGORIES
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
No. of Likes on each
framework's online
community on
facebook.com
63,041 likes
(94%)
2,521 likes
(4%)
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
gg62%
38%
109
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Comparison of Popularity on Facebook
Results suggested that Adobe Flex was a clear winner in this category, with 63,041
likes it was definitely much more popular than Silverlight which received only 2,521
likes.
5.5 Correlation
In the table given below, percentage values of results of overall support for technical
characteristics, non-technical characteristics and several factors used for comparing
the market standing/reputation of both the frameworks are presented together and an
average of these percentage values is calculated to find out which framework is more
superior than the other in all aspects combined.
CATEGORIES
ADOBE FLEX
MICROSOFT SILVERLIGHT
Support for Technical
Characteristics
46%
54%
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
Likes on facebook
Microsoft Silverlight
Adobe Flex
110
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Support for Non-Technical
Characteristics
53% 47%
Global market penetration of
plug-ins
95.49%
63.95%
Web Search Interest Over Time
21%
79%
Regional Web Search Interest
39%
61%
Average of Related Books on
amazon .com and ebay.com
6%
94%
Threads/Discussions on official
websites
38%
62%
Popularity on Facebook
94%
4%
TOTAL AVERAGE
49.06%
58.11%
Calculated average results suggested that Microsoft Silverlight beat Adobe Flex
just by a difference of 9.05%
A close competition was seen between both the frameworks in the first two
categories (Support for Technical Characteristics and Support for Non-Technical
Characteristics). In the 1st category Silverlight won by a difference of 8% and in the
2nd category Flex beat Silverlight by a difference of just 6%.
Flex scored higher in two other categories, in Global market penetration of plug-ins
category, where its percentage value was 31.54% more than that of Silverlight and in
Popularity on Facebook category, where it's percentage value exceeded than that of
Silverlight by tremendous difference of 90%.
In remaining four categories again Silverlight was the winner, among these, higher
differences were recorded for the 6th category (Average of Related Books on
111
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
amazon.com and ebay.com) and the 4th category (Web Search Interest Over Time).
In the 4th category its percentage score was more than that of Flex by 58% and in
6th category it was shooting 88% higher than that of Flex.
112
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
Adobe Flex has been on the plug-in RIA development frameworks market for more
than 7 years now and Microsoft Silverlight has been there for more than 4 years,
which makes Flex the more mature framework in this study. But being there on the
market for a time period which is twice as long as the time period of Silverlight
doesn't imply that it's better in all aspects than Silverlight. In a very short period of
time with constant releases of updated versions Silverlight has achieved a position
which makes it one of the top competitors of Adobe Flex in the plug-in frameworks
market.
When the comparison of technical characteristics associated with both these
frameworks was carried out, results suggested that there is not much difference in the
number of different tools, features and functionalities supported by both. Results
suggested that there was just one additional functionality i.e. Multi-threading, which
was present in Silverlight and absent in Flex. Also, Silverlight provided better
support than Flex in the following features which were present in both: Animations,
Transformations & Effects, User Interface (UI) Controls &Components, Data
Binding, Data Grid, Deep Zoom, Application Localization, Printing and
Programming Languages.
Flex provided better support than Silverlight in the following four categories: File
Upload, GPU Acceleration, RSS Feeds and Webcam and Microphone.
113
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Final results of the evaluation of technical aspects suggest that Silverlight provides
54% support for technical characteristics which is 8% more than that of Flex.
When the non-technical characteristics i.e. the usability and user experience of
designers and developers were compared, Flex was rated more in 8 out of 10
characteristics that tested the usability of frameworks different features.
Participants rated Silverlight more for two characteristics. First was the
Designer/Developer Tools category, here Silverlight wins the battle because of its
support for the popular .NET framework which allows the designers and developer
to develop rich applications with the knowledge of any language that comes under
the .NET family. The second category where Silverlight's average response was
more than that of Flex was Refactoring & Code-Completion. Microsoft has always
been great with code completion, Silverlight uses Microsoft Visual Studio integrated
development environment (IDE) for developing applications which is one of the best
in the market.
Judging by the results of comparison of user experience of both the frameworks,
Flex is what the users prefer for developing rich applications for the web. But,
surprising results were seen when the web presence of both were compared. Results
of global web search interest in both the frameworks collected from Google Insights
showed that the interest over time in Silverlight exceeded than that of Flex by 58%
and Silverlight was also a winner in the regional interest category.
When the number of books available on online shopping website such as ebay and
amazon were compared, results suggested that ebay listed 12 more books on Flex
and amazon listed 272 more books on Silverlight.
114
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Even when the threads/discussions related to each framework on their respective
official websites were compared, Silverlight was a winner with 24% more threads on
its official website than that of Adobe Flex.
In the reports by riastats.com, which were used to measure the worldwide market
penetration (worldwide users of) of both the plug-ins, results clearly showed that
Flex's Flash Player plug-in is used/preferred by a whopping 95.49% of people
worldwide that is approximately 30% more than the worldwide support received by
Silverlight. But, being half as new in comparison to Flash Player plug-in which has
been there for quite some years now, and still receiving 65.95% support from global
users is not that bad for Silverlight.
Microsoft is working really hard to make Silverlight more powerful and efficient in
factors where it still lacks than other frameworks. It's still is in its dormant stage and
is getting better with time and most certainly has some features which are better than
Flex. But, Flex came out as a winner as it has been there in the market for a longer
period of time, it understands users demands and requirements better than
Silverlight. Thus, for now Flex is what designers/developers prefer when it comes to
building RIAs.
The software industry is such that new technologies are constantly created, tested
and updated in very short span of time. Plus, its connectivity with the Internet and
the World Wide Web open more doors for innovative and ingenious ideas and
concepts, this is the reason why in the future developers of rich web applications will
definitely have more than one option available. The results of the research study will
help RIA designers and developers to pick a framework among the two that best suit
their needs for now, but the future is uncertain, it's based upon the requirements of
115
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
consumer population and what is it that they want to see in the next best release of
RIA development frameworks. Eventually, the software company which best
understands and addresses the user demands will be the one which gets to stay on the
top.
116
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION
7.1 Further Research
As mentioned before, the software industry is such that it undergoes evolution
constantly, today we have some factors on the basis of which the performance of
different RIA development frameworks can be measured and compared. But, in the
future for conducting an evaluation of RIA development frameworks these same
factors cannot be compared and a totally new set of factors would have to be
considered for carrying out this comparison.
Today, desktop/laptop users require rich and vibrant interfaces that are graphically
rich, businesses and organizations require applications that simplify their tasks by
reducing total time and cost of development and this is what the current competitor
in the software industry like Adobe Flex and Microsoft Silverlight are trying to
provide to its users.
But, these demands are going to change with time as the technology evolves. Valdes
(2009) an analyst at Gartner Inc. (technology research and advisory firm) came up
with five aspects on the basis of which performance and evolution of future RIA
development frameworks/platforms can be tracked. These factors were, frameworks
integration with the server side, then HTML 5, declarative XML, support for more
tools, features and Integrated Development Environments and last but not the least
support for designing rich applications for mobile devices.
117
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
With the help of these aspects further comparison of different RIA development
frameworks can be conducted to find out which frameworks are either working on or
planning to work on these aspects in the future.
Also, a further study can be carried out to learn about needs and expectations of
different RIA users and what additional tools/functionalities the developers and
designers are hoping these different RIA development frameworks should provide,
so that they can fulfill the requirements of the RIA users. Thus, this study can prove
to be beneficial for both users as well as developers of RIAs, on one hand it can help
the developers of RIAs to learn about the needs and expectations of users and on the
other hand this information can then be used for including new and improved
functionalities to different RIA development platforms that eventually deliver the
users with what they want.
7.2 Limitations
The objective of this research study was to compare RIA platforms in terms of the
technical support it provides, its user experience and market standing to find out
which framework is more popular in the current market. This is where the first
limitation of this research project was faced. RIAs are a relatively new concept and
not many RIA framework evaluation systems exists in the literature that could have
been used for carrying out a comparison between the two RIA platforms. Either, the
comparison criteria of the existing systems wasn't suitable for conducting this study
or it was too outdated to compare the features of today's generation of RIAs.
Main criteria for identifying participants for this study was based upon the their
current knowledge of RIA development frameworks and its relevancy to this
research topic, their experience of working with both the frameworks and their
118
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
understanding of the various technical/non - technical characteristics associated with
both the frameworks. This study required participants who fit in this above
mentioned criteria and doing so was a tricky task, as initially only the people
working in the IT industry who might be familiar with these frameworks were
targeted. But, during the test selection process second limitation of this study was
faced, many responded saying that they were familiar with either one of the
frameworks and not both. Thus, to overcome this limitation the next best option to
get participants was used, which was to target people from some of the top software
developer forums, where members are constantly analysing, working with and
writing reviews on different software launched in the market. This option solved the
problem of getting required number of participants for the study.
Word Count: 20,879
119
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adobe Systems Inc. (2011) Adobe Flex, Adobe [online] Available from:
http://www.adobe.com/products/flex.html [Accessed: 7th June2011]
Adobe Systems Inc. (2011) Rich Internet Applications, Adobe [online] Available from:
http://www.adobe.com/resources/business/rich_internet_apps/ [Accessed: 7th June 2011]
Allaire, Jeremy (2002) Macromedia Flash MX—A next-generation rich client, San
Francisco, Macromedia Inc.
Anderson, Paul (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education,
JISC Technology and Standards Watch, p. 2-64.
Berners-Lee, T. and Cailliau, R. (1990) World Wide Web: Proposal for a HyperText Project
[online] Available from: http://www.w3.org/Proposal.html [Accessed: 3rd June 2011]
Berners-Lee, Tim. and Fischetti, Mark (1999) Weaving the Web: The Original Design and
Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by its Inventor, San Francisco, Harper
Bevilacqua, Ann F.(1989) Hypertext: Behind the Hype, American Library Association,
20(2), 158-162.
Bozzon, A. et al. (2006) Capturing RIA concepts in a web modelling language, Proceedings
of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, Edinburgh, Scotland, p.162-163.
Bright Software (2003) Rich Clients vs. Thin Clients, White Paper [online] Available from:
http://www.brightforms.com/Documentation/Rich%20Client%20Vs%20Thin%20Client%20
applications.PDF [Accessed: 25th August 2011]
Brown, Peter J. (1987) Turning Ideas into Products: The Guide System, Kent, The
University of Canterbury. p.33-40.
120
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Busch, M. and Koch, N. (2009) Rich Internet Applications State-of-the-Art, Technical
Report 0902, Germany, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, p. 5-17
CERN (2008) CERN in a nutshell [online] Available from:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/About-en.html [Accessed: 26th June 2011]
Christodoulou, S. et. al (1998) Evaluation of Hypermedia Application Development and
Management Systems, Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on Hypertext and
hypermedia, NY, USA, p. 1-10
Coffman K. G. and Odlyzko A. M. (2001) Growth of the Internet, AT&T Labs - Research
[online] Available from: http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/oft.internet.growth.pdf
[Accessed: 5th August 2011]
Gay, Jonathan (2001) The History of Flash, Adobe Systems Inc [online] Available from:
http://www.adobe.com/macromedia/events/john_gay/page04.html [Accessed: 2nd May
2011]
Gillies, J. and Cailliau, R. (2000) How the Web was born: the story of the World Wide Web,
New York, Oxford University Press
Google Insights for Search (2011) Interest Over Time [online] Available from:
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Microsoft%20silverlight%2CAdobe%20Flex&c
mpt=q [Accessed: 11th August 2011]
Google Insights for Search (2011) Regional Interest in Adobe Flex [online] Available from:
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Microsoft%20silverlight%2CAdobe%20Flex&c
mpt=q [Accessed: 11th August 2011]
Google Insights for Search (2011) Regional Interest in Microsoft Silverlight [online]
Available from:
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Microsoft%20silverlight%2CAdobe%20Flex&c
mpt=q [Accessed: 11th August 2011]
Grosso, William (2005) Laszlo: An Open Source Framework for Rich Internet Applications,
Java.net [online] Available from: http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2005/03/22/laszlo.html
[Accessed: 7th July 2011]
121
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Hammond, J. and Goulde, M. (2007) Rich Internet Apps Move Beyond The Browser,
Forrester Research Inc., p. 1-9.
Hawn, Mathew (1995) Netscape Navigator. (Netscape Communications World Wide Web
browser ) (Software Review) (Evaluation) [online] Available from:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16739494.html[Accessed: 13th August 2011]
Heagret, P. (2011) 100 Specifications for the Open Web Platform and Counting [online]
Available from: http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/01/100_specifications_for_the_ope.html
[Accessed: 8th July 2011]
Hecker, Marcus (2005) Rich Client or Thin Client? [online] Available from:
http://www.insideselfstorage.com/articles/2005/05/rich-client-or-thin-client.aspx [Accessed:
25th August 2011]
Inventing Interactive (2010) Aspen Movie Map [online] Available from:
http://www.inventinginteractive.com/2010/03/18/aspen-movie-map/ [Accessed: 28th June
2011]
Knierim, Thomas (2011) Semantic vs. presentational HTML [online] Available from:
http://www.thomasknierim.com/59/web-development/semantic-versus-presentational-html/
[Accessed: 17th August 2011]
Koch, N. (1999) A Comparative Study of Methods for Hypermedia Development, Technical
Report 9905, Germany, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, p. 1-19.
Linnenfelser, Marcel et al. (2009) An Overview of and Criteria for the Differentiation and
Evaluation of RIA Architectures In: S. Murugesan , Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0,
and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications. New York, IGI Global. p. 135-
158.
Mac GUI City (1987) Rumors or Reality [online] Available from:
http://macgui.com/usenet/?group=14&id=4827 [Accessed: 5th June 2011]
122
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Microsoft (2010) About Silverlight, Microsoft Silverlight [online] Available from:
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/what-is-silverlight/ [Accessed: 8th June 2011]
Noda and Helwig (2005) Rich Internet Applications, University of Wisconsin-Madison, p. 1-
10
O'Reilly, Tim (2005) What Is Web 2.0 [online] Available from:
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [Accessed: 5th August 2011]
O'Rourke, C. ( 2004) A Look at Rich Internet Applications, Oracle Magazine [online]
Available from: http://wolfpaulus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/richinetapp.pdf
[Accessed: 2nd August 2011]
Postel, Jon (1982) Computer Mail Meeting Notes [online] Available from:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc805 [Accessed: 1st August 2011]
Preciado, J.C. et al. (2005) Necessity of methodologies to model rich Internet applications,
Proceedings of WSE(2005) Seventh IEEE International Symposium. p. 7-13.
Preciado, J.C. et al. (2007) Designing Rich Internet Applications with Web Engineering
Methodologies, Proceedings of WSE(2007) 9th IEEE International Workshop, Paris p. 23-
30.
Raggett (1998) A history of HTML In: Raggett on HTML 4, Boston, Addison-Wesley
Skinner, Megan (2010) Research – the essential guide - Ways to categorise research and
methodology, BFI [online] Available from:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/researchguide/pdf/bfi-edu-resources_research-the-
essential-guide.pdf [Accessed: 5th August 2011]
statowl.com (2011) Flash Player Version Support [online] Available from:
http://statowl.com/flash.php?1=1&timeframe=last_6&interval=month&chart_id=4&fltr_br=
&fltr_os=&fltr_se=&fltr_cn=&chart_id=6 [Accessed: 10th August 2011]
123
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
statowl.com (2011) Microsoft Silverlight Version Support [online] Available from:
http://statowl.com/silverlight.php?1=1&timeframe=last_6&interval=month&chart_id=4&fltr
_br=&fltr_os=&fltr_se=&fltr_cn=&chart_id=6 [Accessed: 10th August 2011]
statowl.com (2011) Web Browser Plug-in Market Share [online] Available from:
http://statowl.com/plugin_overview.php [Accessed: 10th August 2011]
UW E-Business Consortium (UWEBC - A division of UW E-Business Institute,) (2005)
Rich Internet Applications, University of Wisconsin-Madison, p. 1-10
Valdes, R. (2009) Key Issues in Rich Internet Applications Platforms and User Experience,
Gartner Inc.
W3C (1997) XHTML2 Working Group Home Page [online] Available from:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ [Accessed: 2th August 2011]
W3C (2003) Who's Who at the World Wide Web Consortium [online] Available from:
http://www.w3.org/People/all#dsr [Accessed: 25th June 2011]
W3C (2010) HTML &CSS [online] Available from:
http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/htmlcss#whatcss [Accessed: 5th July 2011]
W3C (2011) 100 Specifications for the Open Web Platform and Counting [online] Available
from: http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/01/100_specifications_for_the_ope.html [Accessed:
15th June2011]
W3C (2011) 4 Conformance: requirements and recommendations [online] Available from:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/conform.html [Accessed: 5th August 2011]
W3C (2011) HTML [online] Available from: http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML [Accessed:
5th July 2011]
W3C (2011) What is HyperText [online] Available from: http://www.w3.org/WhatIs.html
[Accessed: 8th July 2011]
124
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
W3C OR Thompson (2011) The future of applications: W3C TAG perspectives [online]
Available from: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/IAB_Prague_2011_slides.html [Accessed:
5th July 2011]
Waldron, Rick (2000) The Flash History, flashmagzine.com [online] Available from:
http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/the_flash_history/ [Accessed: 2nd June 2011]
Web and Macros (2011) Dynamic Web (Defination, Examples, Application Web..) [online]
Available from: http://www.webandmacros.net/dynamic-website.htm [Accessed: 5th August
2011]
Whatley, Simon (2005) Rich Internet Applications - A Background [online] Available from:
http://www.simonwhatley.co.uk/rich-internet-applications-a-background [Accessed: 10th
June 2011]
Wium Lie, Hakon (2005) CASCADING STYLE SHEETS. Published Thesis for degree of
Doctor Philosophice, University of Oslo
125
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
APPENDIX
Results/Response Summary from Survey Monkey
126
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
127
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Threads/Discussions on Adobe Flex Official Forums
128
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Threads/Discussions on Microsoft Silverlight Official Forums
129
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
130
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Comparison of Web Search Interest with the help of Google Insights for Search
131
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Popularity on Facebook - Adobe Flex
Popularity on Facebook - Microsoft Silverlight
132
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Books related to Adobe Flex - amazon Results
Books related to Adobe Flex - ebay Results
133
Ankita Sunil Sonavane | Reg. No.: 100151862
Books related to Microsoft Silverlight - ebay Results
Books related to Microsoft Silverlight - amazon Results