Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of Google’s browser-native approach to web application development. Strategically I can see the advantages (wide and open access) and politically I think it’s admirable (open standards) but, in design terms, this lowest common denominator approach proves disastrous.

For example in a comparison between the barebones HTML-based Google Docs and the slick Flash-based Acrobat.com, I’d reserve the term RIA (rich internet application) for the latter and dismiss the former as a mere “web application” (more importantly I know which one I’d prefer to use).

Recently though I have to admit that Google caused my jaw to drop… and made me question the distinction.

Like most people I’ve become so used to Google Maps that I now take its extraordinary power for granted. I was forcefully reminded of just how amazing it is however, when I recently went to print out some directions. For the first time I noticed and clicked on the options in the print preview header to show maps and street views for each individual step (see example).

The latter capability in particular is extraordinary (assuming the area that you are interested in is covered by Street View). Being able to almost-instantaneously load in views of each junction that you are going to come across on your journey is breathtaking – especially as each street view is live and explorable (though thankfully that’s not generally necessary as Google automatically orientates the view based on the direction you’re travelling)

It certainly gave me pause for thought. If an application can cause you to say “oh that’s good, that’s really good” out loud, then surely it deserves to be called “rich”? In fact, if Google Maps isn’t a “rich internet application” then what on earth is?

It’s certainly a useful reminder of just how powerful the browser can be as a platform, but ultimately I think it’s worth preserving the distinction and reserving “RIA” for player-based applications (ie Flash / Silverlight). This isn’t just on practical grounds so that we know what we’re talking about. Google is clearly committed to making the browser as rich an environment as it can, but that’s rich in terms of content and functionality not in terms of design.

Indeed Google clearly prides itself on its cut-down, almost anti-design approach. This minimalist “anti-Flash” design works well for Google’s core applications such as Search and Maps where Google’s job is to help you get where you want to go as quickly as possible (indeed you could make the case that the street map mini-views are a flashy falling away from this principle).  However for those applications – the majority – where you have to spend time consuming or producing content, this barebones approach backfires as it does with Google Docs.

Clearly content and functionality are crucial to the success of any project but ultimately I’d argue that the “rich” in RIA refers to design and that the distinguishing strength of a player-based approach is that it can offer a richer, tighter, more desktop-like user experience than the browser alone. The browser-based Google Maps is brilliant, but a player-based version could be better still.

———————–

PS. A quick practical postscript for web designers: Google recently introduced the ability to add Google Map directions to your own sites . The Directions gadget doesn’t offer street map views (currently), but it’s a seriously useful option to add to your How To Find Us pages. And it’s a great way to get your clients’ jaws dropping with a single line of code.

PPS. A quick impractical postscript: In spite of the directions and street views, I still managed to get hopelessly lost. Google Maps might be brilliant but it’s no replacement for Sat Nav.