During the MAX 2009 conference, Duane Nickull was interviewed by DZone on the subject of RIA architectures. As an architect, I appreciated Duane’s comments about the responsibility of architects, versus developers, where RIAs are concerned (e.g. focusing on and valuing interaction design and user experience, distilling key business requirements by working closely with those the RIA will serve, being mindful of the framing process-oriented context, etc.).
In particular, don’t frustrate users resonates with me (e.g. it’s a non-technical answer to “what is an RIA?” (or “reeyah”). Duane’s Revenue Canada example (or not “getting” this) is a good one. It just so happens that I encountered my own today…
First, two exhibits off Twitter:
- A – I try to help shine a light on a community voice
- B – (less than six hours later) subject vendor asks for community input
Don’t get me wrong, more vendors need to be reaching out and engaging with their communities in deep and meaningful ways. So, I’m not suggesting that creating a forum for community discussion is bad. However…
What if, instead, the forum was seeded (pre-launch) by a reasonable distillation of those who’ve already voiced their concerns, like Pie? The Web is there to be culled–“listened to” if you will–you just need to mine it.
As Duane and his co-authors talk about in Web 2.0 Architectures, more and more of us are living declaratively. Certainly this is true when it comes to providing candid feedback and standing behind things we believe in (e.g. vendors we want to succeed…and those we don’t).
So, an alternative forum post could have listed Pie’s identity management feedback alongside the feedback of others–fully annotated with community profiles, source links, etc. Of course, those supporting the forum could proactively reach out to folks like Pie to confirm that discovered feedback is appropriate for syndication and could enable contributors to easily follow the conversation moving forward–ideally in the medium of their choice (e.g. email, feed, etc.).