Adam: Very valid points. But I think I should clarify the point and intent of this blog post, because it's not entirely evident (even to me) after reading it again. First, however, I do have to disagree that "RIA" and "Web 2.0" are "tech terms." SQL is a tech term. HTTP is a tech term. AJAX is a tech term. RIA is clearly a marketing term (disputably) coined by some clever marketing folk at Macromedia. Web 2.0 was supposedly coined by O'Reilly. When I build a web app (I am a Rails and Flex developer), neither of these terms helps me clarify what the heck I am intending to build. Only drawings do that. Or mock-ups. Or focused discussions of particular features. Throwing in a term like RIA is just verbal hand-waving.

I say all this, but these are unimportant arguments. RIA and Web 2.0 aren't going anywhere at this point, so it would be silly of me to call for their permanent banishment. And I'm not. What I am saying is that we all should think deeper about how language affects our point of view and our ways of thinking about technology. Why invent new terms all the time? Why can't we have new conversations about old terms instead of new conversations about new terms? When transistors replaced vacuum tubes, did people invent a new word for the computer? No, we still call them computers.

The point being that new language is socially expensive. Every time we invent some silly new term to describe what is (in essence) just a technological progression of something that already exists (i.e. the web application), we spend a lot of time and energy educating people about it. You say RIA is not a "public" word, which may be true, but I say that whenever we can avoid isolating ourselves from the public by coming up with our own internal language, we should. I may be in the minority here, but I think it's elitist. Whether my grandparents understand or not is not a moot point - it IS the point :)

In the end, rich experiences should be the de facto standard by now. If we're trying to build technology that everyone will love and enjoy and want to use, then obviously we want to design and create the best experience possible. We don't need new language to make this happen. We just need creativity, imagination and the ability to re-think what already is.

These ARE valid terms because definitions such as RIA or Web 2.0 help people who build these things to communicate what's required. These are not "public" words. They are tech terms that overarch a wide variety of solutions. Broad terms yes. Whether your grandparents understand what these phrases mean or not is a moot point. Do your grandparents know what a SQL database is? Should we rename it to "software" too?

As far as marketing goes, if the term RIA or Web 2.0 is used when pitching to a client then it _is_ useful because of how the approaches that underpin what these phrases stand for differ from traditional web sites. So you want Web 2.0? If you mean more user interaction, comments, gradings etc... then beware that users can comment negatively as well as positively - what will that mean to your brand if this occurs? Plus it'll cost you more because of x, y, and z.

Architecting an application is very different to architecting a web site. It is something that front-end developers are being more and more tasked to do, but have little experience in planning. One example being that with Ajax you need to build contingencies for when the content you're calling and exposing to the user fails. This is something that Information Architects have little experience in handling as well in my experience. Also DHTML/Ajax, say drag and drop functionality - how does that degrade gracefully for those with disabilities, or users without JavaScript enabled (banks/financial houses etc...)?

Surely these are useful terms because they alert developers and clients to the change in methodology required?