NATIW: There is a debate about the impact of the web 2.0 in the enterprise. Some speak about Enterprise 2.0 and believe that the new web technology will change the work place by empowering employees and enhancing collaboration. Others believe that web technologies are not powerful enough to disrupt the existing hierarchical structures. What is your stake on that debate?

JJG: Web 2.0 technologies have the potential to dramatically transform communication and collaboration within the enterprise. But it’s not enough simply to deploy these technologies and expect everything to magically change for the better. It takes time for people to learn how to use these tools effectively, and organizations are bound to make mistakes along the way. Constant refinement and communication of the processes surrounding these tools are essential for success.

NATIW: Even with Ajax, web app still does not offer the same richness and responsiveness than desktop software. In this context, do you think that javascript is the weak link of the AJAX paradigm? Are the increase in processing power and the next versions of browsers a credible solution to this problem?

JJG: Processing power and new browsers will help, but right now what’s really holding back the richness of Ajax applications is JavaScript. The current generation of Ajax applications are already testing the limits of what can be done with JavaScript, which hasn’t changed significantly in years. Even if browser implementations become faster and more robust, the language itself still imposes fundamental limitations.

NATIW: In the same context as the previous question, and with the appearance of XUL, Flash and other embedded objects within the browser, do you think that HTML is still adapted to the current requirement of web development?

JJG: I think there’s still a lot of life left in HTML. It’s not particularly well suited for application user interfaces, but it’s not poorly suited either. HTML is also still far easier to learn and work with than most other user interface technologies.

NATIW: Do you think web graphic tools like Flash, SVG or VML could be strong enough for web applications to compete with desktop applications?

JJG: They definitely have that potential. Flash is clearly the most mature technology here, but it has certain limitations simply due to not being fully integrated into the browser. SVG just hasn’t had significant momentum in the development community, but anything is possible — it took CSS a few years to get going too.

NATIW: Do you think web browsers will adapt to AJAX? From early 2005, it’s more AJAX Apps that have adapted to browsers (back button hack, bookmarking an AJAX site, etc…)

JJG: I think web browsers will have to adapt. The browsers haven’t really changed all that much since the earliest commercial products in the mid-90s, but the nature of how people use the web has changed dramatically in that time. So I think it’s natural for the browser makers to take a look at their products and see how to evolve them for the current audience.

NATIW: What do you think of a computer reduced to a browser with an online OS? Is that idea realistic? If so, when would it be possible?

JJG: A “WebOS” is certainly theoretically possible. I can imagine the native desktop gradually shrinking down to the bare essentials needed to support a web browser. The trouble is that the web technologies we have right now are nowhere near where they would need to be to make this feasible. We need more sophisticated browsers, more sophisticated UI technologies, and more sophisticated client-side programming languages to accomplish this. It’s years away.

NATIW: Google is developing lots of complementary free web applications. Do you think Google will hijack the web like Microsoft has done with the desktop with Windows and Office?

JJG: I don’t think the people at Google have a master plan for taking over the web. If they do, it certainly isn’t evident from looking at the choices they’ve made so far. Microsoft was able to achieve its dominance primarily by raising the barriers to switching to competing products, making it too expensive or too much work to switch and keeping their dominant products incompatible with competitors. As long as Google keeps the barriers to switching low — making it easy to get data out of their products in formats that competitors can work with — I don’t see their dominance as a threat.

NATIW: What do you think will be the Web 3.0?

JJG: I don’t think there will be a Web 3.0. We’ll see a gradual evolution of the ideas in Web 2.0 for several years to come. After that, the next jump forward will probably be something so different from those ideas that it wouldn’t make sense to call it “the web” at all.

NATIW: What are you currently working on?

JJG: As President at Adaptive Path, I’m involved to some degree in almost everything we do. And we’re doing a lot of stuff — a lot of big organizations are coming to us to help them define the experience strategies for their products. Plus we’ve got some conferences and workshops coming up this year in America and Europe that I’m involved in putting together.

NATIW: Where do you see yourself professionally in 5 or 10 years?

JJG: Ten years is almost impossible to imagine. In many ways, I feel like I’m just getting started — there are so many interesting possibilities for learning more about creating products that connect with users. Any kind of complex interaction, whether with a technology product or otherwise, is ideal for the design techniques we apply every day.

Questions by Nicolas Faugout, AJAX developer & author of http://ajax-prototype.blogspot.com