The mobile web does need a rethink. Imo, 'responsive' designs can be a mess that dont fit well to either desktop or mobile. There are really 2 use cases: mobile portrait mode and everything else - screens are big enough now that it doesnt make sense to have a tablet version. Second, we need to start using built-in browser inputs instead of downloading megabytes of JS to render something like a datepicker . There are…
> There are really 2 use cases: mobile portrait mode and everything else I mostly agree. I am currently tasked with building a brand new mobile/desktop web app from scratch, and this is the path I have chosen as well. The breakpoint I am working with right now is 980px. Seems to be a goldilocks setting in 2022.
The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
21–30 of 123 posts
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#22The mobile web does need a rethink. Imo, 'responsive' designs can be a mess that dont fit well to either desktop or mobile. There are really 2 use cases: mobile portrait mode and everything else - screens are big enough now that it doesnt make sense to have a tablet version. Second, we need to start using built-in browser inputs instead of downloading megabytes of JS to render something like a datepicker . There are…
Then built-in browser inputs need to offer customization, which the more complicated ones often do not. Other than datepickers, most inputs are native by need of accessibility.
> There are now input fields for everything, but I rarely see them used
iOS Safari currently does not support most of the native datepicker API, rendering it almost useless.
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#23The mobile web does need a rethink. Imo, 'responsive' designs can be a mess that dont fit well to either desktop or mobile. There are really 2 use cases: mobile portrait mode and everything else - screens are big enough now that it doesnt make sense to have a tablet version. Second, we need to start using built-in browser inputs instead of downloading megabytes of JS to render something like a datepicker . There are…
> There are really 2 use cases: mobile portrait mode and everything else I mostly agree. I am currently tasked with building a brand new mobile/desktop web app from scratch, and this is the path I have chosen as well. The breakpoint I am working with right now is 980px. Seems to be a goldilocks setting in 2022.
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either the user creates a bookmark on their home screen or the app asks with a popup if it should be added to the home screen. How much simpler can we make this process?
I think they're referring to iOS specifically, which doesn't support the latter.
Home screen and bookmarks are for pull
Notifications are for push
What the OS or browser needs to do is manage those far better so it’s working on your behalf (user agent) and safeguarding your attention.
Probably notifications should cost something, in fact an auction. Why don’t people earn currency for their attention? It’s a zero-sum game with publishers paying for users’ attention as an investment. Isn’t that what BAT aas supposed to be? Did it work?
Click fraud is an issue but then the publishers would require someone like Apple and Google to make available webauthn attestation (web credentials) that this was a real device that was purchsed!
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#25The mobile web does need a rethink. Imo, 'responsive' designs can be a mess that dont fit well to either desktop or mobile. There are really 2 use cases: mobile portrait mode and everything else - screens are big enough now that it doesnt make sense to have a tablet version. Second, we need to start using built-in browser inputs instead of downloading megabytes of JS to render something like a datepicker . There are…
The native notification channels have a way of forcing good behavior, like AMP. As an end user, the more a rando company desires total control of my notifications, the more I want them confined to a walled garden.
Lyft and Uber are the worst violators of this dark pattern on my phone, but I’m sure that if I allowed notifications more often I would see it everywhere.
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are really 2 use cases: mobile portrait mode and everything else I mostly agree. I am currently tasked with building a brand new mobile/desktop web app from scratch, and this is the path I have chosen as well. The breakpoint I am working with right now is 980px. Seems to be a goldilocks setting in 2022.
I've gotten good results from using just the pointer media query, since that is generally the more pressing issue (how easy is it for users to hit buttons): https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/poin...
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#27People don't install new apps anymore. They have their go-to apps for entertainment, work and logistics (IG, TW, Netflix, Google Docs, Bank, Uber), a couple of games maybe and that's it.
For everything else, it makes less and less sense to have to install yet another app.
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#28Progressive web apps suffer from an ergonomic issue where people have to read 2-3 tutorials to figure out how to put a site on their homescreen. If that hurdle vanished and was more intuitive and didn't require reading tutorials, PWAs would gain more traction. This is why people who are developing PWAs need to evangelize for better, more intuitive deployment of PWAs on popular mobile OSes like iOS and Android.
Either the user creates a bookmark on their home screen or the app asks with a popup if it should be added to the home screen. How much simpler can we make this process?
An app store for PWAs would be nice. Users are not aware they can add sites to their home screen and automagically transform a site into an app. Nerdy types may be aware of it, but for the average user they're simply not aware of PWAs.
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#29What are you going to do? Write your cross-platform app in C++ and Rust? Write your own macOS and Windows and Linux and iOS and Android bindings, or use some shoddy low-level buggy third-party libraries? Reimplement of flexbox and/or struggle with layout and alignment issues? Use third party dependencies for style, network, lifecycle, and everything else you just get automatically in modern browsers?
What if you’re an entry-level developer or startup hiring entry-level developers? You can’t expect a beginner to deal with these gripes and edgecases alone, let alone on top of the gripes and edgecases of a low-level language. And, more beginners already have experience in web dev vs in C.
Or maybe you decide to use Java. Except Java doesn’t target mobile. Well it does with RoboVM, but then you’re stuck with Java 7 and other limitations. And you have to ship the JVM, and your UI is basically guaranteed to look like garbage (unless you’re JetBrains), and you have to deal with Maven or Gradle. But if you used JavaScript, everyone has a working web browser.
Or maybe you use Kotlin or Scala or GHCjs or another framework which claims to target all platforms. Except last time I checked, these just do not work good and have much support for truly every platform. In fact they have most of the same issues as Java. Targeting 5 platforms is hard and tedious, writing a half-functional universal adapter for 5 platforms is nearly impossible.
Now if you do go through with something other than web and manage to target all platforms, you get a faster app, and the code probably is nicer and easier to extend. Except you don’t really care about speed or long-term extensibility. You care about making an app as fast as possible, targeting the widest audience possible, and making people want it (and people usually choose good looks, which is really web-styled looks, which your app doesn’t have).
And you care about marketing, so you have to learn web design and make a website anyways. And no matter what tool you use, when you sell your app, people have to spend a whole 10 seconds downloading and installing it, and many people are too impatient to wait 10 seconds. Meanwhile you could’ve wrote up some garbage using nextjs and PWAs and Firebase and maybe Electron and garbage JavaScript in like 5 days, it “just works” out of the box (issues come up a few months later), it loads in 2 seconds after clicking a single link, and you get the website for free.
Yeah, I hate JavaScript and targeting browsers as much as the next guy, and I much prefer to (and do) write stuff in other platforms. I wish there was a good alternative. But like it or not, web right now is absolutely the “poor man’s native” and beats everything else out of the water. Write your app for a specific platform, write a non-native (like with Java UI), or invest years into your cross-platform truly native product, but “poor man’s native” is web.
Re: The web is not poor man’s native (2015)
#30This article is all over the place. The debate is over. The web won. You can see that by the way popular websites will try and force you to install their apps. That’s because their web experience is perfectly competent to scratch the users itch. They are forced to artificially cripple their mobile web experience to drive app installs. There is a strong niche left to native. I’m thinking of things like creative tools.…
I don't think so. Either way the statements are rife with soft terminology, but I'll use raw traffic as my metric for dominance in the functional space.
https://www.perficient.com/insights/research-hub/mobile-vs-d....
The majority of traffic is mobile and apps still rule that platform due to both a superior experience and better interfaces. The trend is clear and ongoing, so I'm not sure why people think the web is still the king. The reasons websites ask you to install the app is because the phone makes that simple when using a phone browser, not because they are implying it will be a better experience for a desktop user.
As you mentioned, content creation tools are almost exclusively PC and so the individuals who are creators (like anyone on this forum) are unconsciously biased toward PCs. I really hate trying to use my phone for anything, because of this bias. My wife and most of my family (excepting my dad) has the opposite experience.