So being a developer and a designer I have recently come to the conclusion that chances are some one has done it before and some one has used it before. What this means is that many of us know the websites we like, the tools we use, and the interactions we expect. The development community has built thousands of paradigms that encapsulate user needs and provide distinct user patterns. We have compiled a knowledge base on our users over the years in order to develop better, stronger, faster applications. Some companies have a UX team and a UI team - treating each as a separate entity. By todays definition, the UX is based on the UI and the experience that the UI provides to the user. When i think of this i wonder - does the user not already have an expectation of their experience before they even begin? Are these expectations not in line with other user’s expectations and how users may experience other applications? I understand that RIA is a new way to experience web applications, with that expectation that the browser  would be similar to expectations from the desktop.

Due to these questions i am trying to discern a new development strategy that incorporates what we already know about the UX and build the UI off of that, not vice versa. It seems like a term for now and really is a simple hybrid, but i would like to develop a framework off of this that implements the strategy of using predefined interactions and expected movement / results as the prime motivation for how an application is designed and developed - the interactions are there, now lets build the logic. I would like to see Flash Catalyst as a first step, but i think this also has to do with the company, developer mindsets, and development practices. When designing in UX and UI , we understand that we are providing an application where the user expects (1-2-3-4) and when executing (1-2-3-4) they expect (a-b-c-d). So when the user initiates (a), there may be an expectation that (e-f-g) is ready and instant - an expectation or more from less. This is the ability of defining the design from expectation that follow discernible patterns.

When creating a search application the user expects an input box and a “search” button. When the button is clicked the user expects the input box and button to still be present and the results to load below it. There is no expectation on how the results load (movement of adding or effects), but they expect the results to load rather fast and for the first result to be the most important (key). The results are paginated and there is a total on how many articles or pages are available for the search. These are the expectations of the user and for a good user experience they must be met. Google has taken this one step further by then adding new articles to the topics search for instantly (live) - this is the (e-f-g). We do not develop an experience that is off centered from basic paradigms, nor do we develop interactions that will cause a new experience that is not a current paradigm if the application is not of a predefined sort, unless we educate the user to the advantages and efficiencies. The education of the user to a new experience is key to creating a new expectation that the user can expect from the interface, not the user creating an expectation from using the interface. by following this pattern you can develop a core structure that can be built upon to promote advanced user interactions.  This does go against the idea of user trial and error - but for things such as the touch screen integration, the user expects that they use their finger instead of a cursor or keyboard - but they must be educated through advertising, friends, or documentation on how they should expect any other interaction to work - pinch and rotate. This states that a company must develop from predefined expectations unless they are willing to educate and inform. This does not state that all paradigms are correct, most really are not, but they have come to be expectations to a user and should be treated as such.