Client-side Code vs. Web 2.0

As a developer who specializes in client-side applications, I can't help but be amused and somewhat puzzled by some of the types of web-based applications people come up with. A great example are web sites that help resize and crop digital photos. There are actually a bunch of them out there; a few that were recently mentioned on (one of my favorite sites lately) include and

They seem to be missing the point. How could it possibly be better to upload a 5-10 megapixel image to a site (which can take several minutes per image even on a very fast connection, as upload speed is usually constrained much more than download speed), have the server resize it, and then download the resized image be better than using a client-side application to resize the image almost instantly, and with full interaction and nearly instant undo? Also, how can these sites afford the bandwidth costs?

Is this a usability issue, or has the world simply gone mad? 🙂

Comments (3)

  1. Jan says:

    Yes, I agree. While I like Web 2.0 sites a la Flickr, YouTube or online applications like webmailer, I dont see any benefit in using a Gump or OpenOffice online.

    Not only the time needed for up/downloading the data is stressful – have you ever thought about safety? Cross side scripting attacs and other "fine" things could steal your valuable data you dont want to share.

  2. They must want to be bought by flickr/yahoo type sites that already hold your photos

  3. Murphy says:

    Here Here.

    Go to if you want to see lots of useless Web 2.0 websites, although some are cool. One idea that amazes me is when someone writes a Web 2.0 app, that acts like an OS. Then they build in applications like email, and Word, Excel and so on. Why would I log in to a "Web OS" to access my email?

Skip to main content