Technologies used
topic map logo
xSiteable logo

Web User Interface Developer - an overview

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to a) give people - like project managers, sales, customers and other developers - an insight into what a web user interface developer does and doesn't, shoulds and shouldn'ts, and b) give web user interface developers insight into methods, best-practices and decisions me and my colleagues at bekk not found. do every day. The Web User Interface Developer - WUID for short - is not someone who "knows a bit of HTML"; there is quite a bit more, and some of that in there that might just save the day.

Web

By "web" we usually refer to the World Wide Web of the Internet. But it really doesn't stop there. Our daily web can also be our local intranet, a customers closed network or our own local machine. In the normal sense, we talk about communication done through the HTTP protocol. To narrow it, we work with HTML-related technologies, and to broaden it, we work with anything that trod down a TCP/IP stream. Knowing what technologies and options available in this environment is important, and so, in the broader sense, it means that the first hat we wear, is that one of the limiter;

So, a customer has come up with a cool feature they want on their home page that includes whistles and bells beyond the scopes of what the web offers, and needs maybe to be told "Yay, that looks impressive and cool, but, nay, those features are beyond the capabilities of the web. Maybe limit the scope of the feature?"

As developers for the Web, we must know about HTTP (and siblings), TCP/IP, Flash, Java, JavaScript, browsers (and their individual differences), web servers, tools and programs that deal with web communications.

User

The users are our primary concern. It is they we develop for, no matter how cool a feature a user wants, how nifty the function is programmed, or how pressed for time we are. Every technology and technique available to us reflect that the end-user is our primary customer; everything else is a secondary concern. This means that our second hat to wear, is that one of usability;

So, a graphic designer that comes up with a nifty cool way of entering data needs to be told "Yay, that is truly a cool fancy thing you've got there, but, nay, the users will find it cumbersome and awkward. Maybe something different?"

This doesn't mean we are usability experts. Rather, we're usability professionals, able to recognize future problems and deal with them before they become a part of the specifications. We're the "early warning system" of web sites.

As developers for Users, we must know about human cognition, basic psychology, logic sorting and good common sense.

Interface

People and computers have struggled from the beginning with how the interaction between the two works. Many methods have been tried, and the set we are most familiar with are the ones that - as far as we can tell - work the best. But most agree that there must be something better than what we have now, because we certainly is not totally happy with it.

Enter the interface. Now, an interface is basically a means of one entity to communicate with another. In our scenario, we're talking about the entities (H)uman and (C)omputer. Chuck on the (I) for interaction, and you get the old abbreviation HCI, which has many references on the net. WUID's need to know a great deal about this topic, although the term HCI is very broad in scope. To us, the usability and accessibility aspects are clearly strong paths to travel, but visual profiling, limits of technology, limits of human cognition and implementational on-the-fly estimation is essential, too. Our next hat to wear is that of interaction focuser;

So, your governmental site has a youth section, and wants a Flash intro to "appeal to the young", but hold on; "Yay, that is good thinking about the appeal, but nay, Flash accessibility is low, and it breaks 'best-practice' of information sites. You do have disabled youth too, and they want info foremost."

Making a good interface is not an easy task. There are many, many considerations to make, and you are bound not to get them all right. Our techniques and methods are only there to make sure that at least the broadest scope can be achieved.

As developers of Interfaces, we must know about all technologies offering of limited in accessibility and usability, interaction principles, MVC (model/view/controller) separation, languages for creating interfaces, and generally tool kits, tools and programs that deal with the interface.

Developer

We're all developers, but the term 'developer' is so broad that it brings little meaning to computer professionals these days, hence the title of this article; you'll find developers in every field. That assembler hacker you've got locked away in the basement is a developer. The nice guy with glasses in the cubicle next to you doing pattern analysis is a developer. Your boss tinkering with the VB-scripts in the CMS system is a developer. Even the boss' snotty teenage son is a developer of 'scripts on daddy's machine that makes all our lives eventful.'

We mostly do things on defined work, known as "projects." At the top sits the project manager that tries to fill in reports and estimates so that the project can deliver on time. There are testers. There are core developers. There are sometimes information architects (although this is quite often - and not always correctly - a project manager role). And in the middle of all these people sits the WUID, trying to convince all people that the output to the end-user - the HTML, CSS and JavaScript - needs to be according to a certain standard, following certain rules and generally follow certain "best-practices" of the web. And that is no easy task when everybody "knows" that if you have some info, you chuck it in a table, or you slap a FONT-tag around it, or you swear to Front Page to draw it, and then copy and paste it into the application. Um, no, our next hat to wear is that of web-soup experts;

So, your core developer outputs HTML in his classes, but "Yay, your output looks alright in Internet Explorer 6.01, but nay, it looks awful in IE 4 and 5, every Opera browser in existance, most Mozilla (and of course Netscape 6+) and Gecko browsers, and insults old ladies using Netscape 4 series. You need to validate your output to a DTD, make the data accessible, fix code for bugs in certain browsers, adjust the CSS files, and tweak the JS file for the added functionality. And you can't use that JS function; it isn't supported in browser Y. And don't put the header in a P-tag following a DIV-tag; it will make browser Z crash. And don't give this CSS to NS 4; it will crash. Oh, and don't use FONT-tags; they are deprecated.

Or better yet, out source it to a library and let a WUID do the job, so that all the above gets done right, and you can focus on your actual job?

The end layer of a web application can be a very complicated mess. Core developers, who wants to create classes and API's, dig into storeprocs and likes to build obscene Perl scripts to remove hashes from local identifiers on the fly, do not want to - and should not - create HTML, CSS and JavaScript code. Don't fall into the pit of "HTML is easy", because that is only a brief look at the surface of the water. Any captain of a successful ship knows to leave the iceberg know-how to the iceberg experts. Follow good Model View Controller separation methods to make sure the success of our project.

As developers, we need to know quite a lot about other general developers areas; XML (and related), SGML (and derivatives, such as XML and HTML), Java (J2EE and EJB especially), C/C++, C#, VB, JS, CORBA, COM+, SOAP, Microsoft .NET, web services, Python, Perl, Rebol, Linux, *BSD, Windows, AIX, Apache, WebLogic, WebSphere, Tomcat, JBoss, xDoclet, Middlegen ... aaahhh, and quite a lot more, far too many here to list.

Coming together

Where does it end? How many things must we learn until we are a really good Web User Interface Developer? In truth; it doesn't end. We must always know the old stuff, learn new stuff, learn new stuff about old stuff, discard wrong stuff and generally try to be strict and pragmatic at the same time. Why? Because web developers are often the glue in projects.

Glue

y

WUID deliver HTML, CSS and JavaScript to Core Developers (and all the "best-practice" advice possible), pushes Model View Controller down on the Systems Architects (and implementation details of metadata, accessibility and validation), giving Information Architects the rounds of metadata (and how their CMS can handle it), implementing every bit of it, and telling the Project Manager all about how smooth things are going.

The role of glue in projects are often thought to be the project manager, and as much as that is true in the sense of pushing deadlines, threats and paper around, when it comes to making sure the quality of the output - the user interface, the interaction scripts and the HTML/CSS code that builds it all - is top-notch, the WUID is the centre of all things. There are several real reasons why this is so, and it is best defined what others don't usually care about;

  • Not all care about validation, and found especially true amongst core developers. This is a strange notion given that they most of the time work with compilers that require correct syntax. HTML is really not any different, but the reason for this state is that there are certain browsers that are quite forgiving on bad code, teaching people bad habits about writing their HTML code. "It works" doesn't mean it really works, and especially not for everyone.
  • Not all care about accessibility, which is understandable; most developers are seeing, talking, hand-waving and dancing individuals. Accessibility is easy to forget, but is a pain when missing for those who need it.
  • Not all care about semantics of HTML, using HTML for what the intended standard was not intended to do; layout. If you need to put emphasis on a word, who are you to determine that it must be bolded? Emphasis can mean many things, bold being but one of many visual ways.
  • Not all care about CSS, thinking that FONT-tags cover whatever layout they need. This may be true for a very early alpha version of your site, but it stops there.
  • Not all care about usability; functionality in the classical sense is what defines most user interfaces. This is not always fortunate, as a good usable interaction might define program control and implementation differently. We are making these programs to cater for users, so why is the core developers in focus?
  • Not all care about alternatives to given methods. Some surf without the capabilities you assume they have, like JavaScript, cookies, browser-specific methods and other assumed ways of going about things. Some have security issues, some surf through proxies, some browsers identify themselves as others (or some you never heard of, but are fully capable of doing what you think it doesn't) and so forth.

In closing; Who cares?

It feels often that most people - apart from those who work with web user interfaces on a daily basis, and even then not always - don't take their user interfaces seriously, even though the end result of any web site is exactly that. Sure, you've hired some designer to draw some pretty layouts for you, and you got some core hackers building you a rather complicated database, and all of this can be rendered useless in a very few lines of bad HTML code. In brief;

  • Project Managers should care about enforcing "best-practice" HTML/CSS/JS guidelines to ensure that the projects lands on its feet and within time. Debugging sloppy code is always a major factor of projects landing face-down. They should also care about the accessibility to the site, making sure both that and the usability of the site maximizes the users intended for the site. And they need to remember that assumptions on who their users are are most often wrong.
  • Core developers should care to make as little HTML as possible; it is not their job, it is (usually) not in their interest, and it isn't what they (usually) are hired for. They should also make sure that the little HTML/CSS/JS they do produce, holds a quality that do not muck up the end result, using semantic markup, validation, and - if possible - wrap their result in a API a web user interface developer can access instead.
  • Information Architects should care about metadata embedded in their CMS and in the end-resulting web site, and what options are available to us after they are there. Are there better uses of metadata that KEYWORDS and DESCRIPTION? The WUID can tell you all about Dublin Core, RDF, Topic maps and other goodies.
  • Developers in general should care about keeping the interaction and profile design to a level which a web user interface developer agrees on. A widget of a certain kind can take weeks to implement, but a similar design - once we agree to make compromises - can take days, even hours.
  • Developers in general should care that their efforts are measured not in the functionality and the methods within, but through the quality of the interface and the content.

So you should definitely care about things that a web user interface developer cares about. It just might save the day.

Wisdom compressed

"Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it."

Flickr goodness!
A photo on Flickr
A photo on Flickr
A photo on Flickr
A photo on Flickr
A photo on Flickr
ShelterIt's photos More of ShelterIt's photos

www.flickr.com
Technorati stuff
My other blog

Please note that the this blog is a low-traffic blog where I only write about things of a given importance, when they are important. For a more fast-paced day-to-day blog, there is my other blog with its RSS feed.

Maintained by
Bloglines recomendation

I use the excelent Bloglines.com web-based blog aggregator as my primary (and only!) blog reader, and here is my public site.