Hmm, another exaggeration from Jeff Atwood. He's getting good at these.<p>In my experience the metaphor doesn't stretch to RIAs. My start-up's main application is precisely one of those "RIA that pretends to behave like a desktop app", and thanks to Flex we've been able to get a good enough approximation. Result? Our users don't feel uncomfortable about it (although we have had the odd user who seemed to expect that everything would be instant even though it was a web-app). On the contrary, our users love it, and have commented on it positively many times.<p>I guess people care less about that last 1% when looking at a web application than when looking at a humanoid robot. Which means stretching the metaphor in this direction doesn't quite work.
I think the worst thing you can do as a webapp is start with emulating the O/S - dragable, resizable, minimizable emulated windows and dialogs.<p>I hate the idea of having "emulated" windows within a single browser window. It looks messy and confused.<p>So on that sort of point I agree. I'm not sure what other examples there are though.
Abstracting (too much), it's violated expectations - like broken promises, people <i>really</i> don't like it.<p>Taking a tangential step, computer automation is similar when it purports to be able to help you, but doesn't understand you well enough to do so; like MS's "clippy".<p>In contrast, Google's "I'm feeling lucky" button is automation that fulfills its promise (though the name emphases that luck is involved). Google can predict so well what I want, that this button is (very often) right. An awesome achievement. I added a simple command-line google lookup, to go directly to the page, and it's freaking me out how well it works:<p><pre><code> > cat ~/bin/g
firefox google.com/search?q="$*"\&btnI= &</code></pre>
The part about web apps -- meh. The part about gobsmackingly good imitation human animation: cool.<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o&fmt=18" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o&fmt=18</a><p>Two years from now we'll be seeing that, or not seeing it as the case may be, in movies. Another two years after that it will be in the AAA video games with 9 figure budgets. And another two years after that you'll be able to do it from a Japanese cell phone.<p>God I love technology.
I don't think the Uncanny Valley can exist with regards to user interfaces. They were created from scratch. And they've changed, and are still changing. And neither a desktop interface nor a web interface is set in stone.<p>See, the valley can exist because humans stay the same, at least to our brains. We don't madly change form or shape every 20 years. But user interfaces do. So how do our brains know a web interface looks too much like a desktop interface? It can only know because we know what both are "supposed" to look like.<p>But kids being brought up on web interfaces that look like desktops will not have a valley because to them that looks normal. There is no set "desktop" look or web interface "look." Its only what we've created. Create something different, and the valley will go away.
Eh, there's something to be said about web applications and the Uncanny Valley, but this isn't it.<p>Atwood, I think, is saying that web applications shouldn't be like desktop applications because it violates the user's expectation of how a webapp should be.<p>Applying the Uncanny Valley to this says that it's not bad for web apps to behave like desktop apps -- it's bad for webapps to signal that they have behave like desktop apps, and then fail to live up to that expectation.<p>This problem affects other products, too. For example, imagine a really awesome semantic search engine called CantorSet. You can throw all sorts of questions at it and it appears to come up with the answer. "What did Bush say at the last G8 meeting?" Wow! Amazing!<p>But then you ask questions like, "Why did my wife leave me?" No answer! Wow, this thing sucks.<p>It's less about what the webapp does or doesn't do, and more about the expectations it sets and whether or not it lives up to them.
Cappuccino is squarely in the "Uncanny Valley" according to Atwood, but I disagree with his analysis.<p>If you look at 280 slides, it doesn't behave quite like a mac, but it's still intuitive. People understand the WIMP.<p>I think he's conflating crappy Swing java apps with webapp UX.
<a href="http://far33d.tumblr.com/post/30017717/on-the-polar-express-to-the-uncanny-valley" rel="nofollow">http://far33d.tumblr.com/post/30017717/on-the-polar-express-...</a><p>I guess I should write more frequently and more in depth.
There's a big difference between web app and web page. Common web app controls (accordion, tab panels etc) allow developers to convey lots more information on screen and well thought out use of AJAX can make a complex application perform more quickly than the static equivalent.<p>As the complexity of web apps increases users will need to get used to the idea that they need to learn how to use each app to get the most out of it which is how it works with desktop apps. Try to compare the UI between desktop apps such as a music editor, 3DSMax and MSWord. Each uses different UI controls (sliders, knobs, text input etc). Each app is complex and has an associated learning curve. If people consider the app useful they will invest the time in learning how to use it.<p>I recently had to learn how to use Aftereffects. The UI and work flow were completely foreign to me - none of my existing knowledge was transferable, but I learned how to use it because I needed the features it provided.<p>Ultimately the market will decide. My guess is that the line between desktop and browser will continue to blur and will one day disappear.