Recently I wrote that what makes RIAs (Rich Internet Applications) different from browser-native web applications isn’t rich functionality or rich content but rich design. Moreover I argued that only a player-based approach (effectively Flash/Flex or Silverlight/WPF) can provide the platform necessary to take web design to the next level.

As I expected, the feedback to the piece centred on the best way of blocking Flash content as it always does whenever I mention the technology. It’s hardly surprising as the first thing that comes to most people’s mind when you mention Flash is irritating banner ads specifically intended to distract you from reading the real content of the page – the absolute definition of bad design.

However in the context of a RIA, Flash/Flex is capable of so much more – producing an end user experience that the browser alone can never hope to match…

To begin with, it’s important to realise that Flash/Flex isn’t inherently “flashy” – it’s up to the designer how they put the platform to use and any decent designer knows that less is usually more.

In fact one of the great strengths of a player-based approach is the smooth and sophisticated streamlining it enables. While technologies like AJAX have allowed browser-based design to paper over the inherently page-based nature of HTML content, this just isn’t an issue for a player. At its best, the browser can offer extraordinary functionality but this will always feel clunky compared to a player-based application – just compare Google Docs to Adobe Buzzword to see the difference in action. Ultimately only the player-based RIA can deliver a truly desktop-style experience.

The design strengths of the player don’t just add to functionality; they are crucial when it comes to dealing with content. Here CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) has worked wonders for the browser enabling it to graft on layout and typographic control to the presentation-neutral HTML, but this is still rudimentary. The difference between the browser and player is made clear when you access the New York Times website and then read the same content via the AIR-based Times Reader application (there’s a free taster version).

At first they might look pretty similar – apart from little things such as the live crossword and the fact that the whole reading experience is tighter and more enjoyable and works offline. The most fundamental difference is hidden unless you happen to resize the application. If you do, you’ll see that the layout automatically updates in real time – increase the application width and the columns will widen and then at the tipping point of comfortable reading another column will appear and any images will intelligently resize themselves accordingly.

Of course this adaptive layout isn’t really intended for such resizing on-the-fly (though it is quite addictive). The real purpose of adaptive layout is to ensure that whatever device you are accessing content by – mobile, notebook, desktop, TV or projector – the layout and design and so end experience are optimised. This isn’t a question of flashy bells-and-whistles it’s absolutely fundamental: it’s automatic and universal good design for any device that supports the Flash player.

As we move on from the early days of the Web, from simple desktop-based browsing to advanced desktop-style reading and doing, the time has come to stop dismissing Flash as just an irritating distraction. Thanks to its adaptive layout capabilities, Flash/Flex sets a new benchmark for the best possible cross-platform cross-device design.

Surely you wouldn’t want to block that?