All Web Developers Should Stop Doing This Immediately(technologyreview.com)
technologyreview.com
All Web Developers Should Stop Doing This Immediately
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/27581/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-02-16
126 comments
I have a friend who was an accountant, found that he liked writing VBA scripts in Excel, and eventually wound up at a company big enough to need an IT department but small enough not to afford a big one, and now he's basically got a dual CFO/CIO role. Every six months or so he tells me about the new mobile app he's got in development for the salesmen to place orders, or for manufacturing line inspectors to check inventory, or something. I always point out that it would be cheaper, faster, and more general to just build a wep application, and he always rolls his eyes and tells me I don't understand the marketing power of mobile apps.
Which is true, I don't. But it got me thinking about all the "browser is the new OS" and "the Internet is OS-agnostic" and "this is the end of Microsoft" talk from the late 90s. Anyone else remember those days? Because Steve Jobs and the IPhone pretty much undid it all. It's 15 years later and everyone cares about the OS again. Weird.
Which is true, I don't. But it got me thinking about all the "browser is the new OS" and "the Internet is OS-agnostic" and "this is the end of Microsoft" talk from the late 90s. Anyone else remember those days? Because Steve Jobs and the IPhone pretty much undid it all. It's 15 years later and everyone cares about the OS again. Weird.
> Because Steve Jobs and the IPhone pretty much undid it all.
It's funny that you pin it on Jobs, who didn't want apps in the first place. Indeed, in 2007, Apple was telling developers to make web apps - http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iPhone-to-Support-...
It was user demand that drove the creation of third party native app development.
It's funny that you pin it on Jobs, who didn't want apps in the first place. Indeed, in 2007, Apple was telling developers to make web apps - http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iPhone-to-Support-...
It was user demand that drove the creation of third party native app development.
Jobs didn't want apps or Jobs said he didn't want apps?
If the native SDK wasn't ready yet, I would have been promoting Web apps, too.
If the native SDK wasn't ready yet, I would have been promoting Web apps, too.
He really didn't want apps:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/press-here/Steve-Jobs-Did...
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/press-here/Steve-Jobs-Did...
Did Apple write any of the iPhone 1.0's system apps as non-native web apps?
IIRC Jobs specifically mentioned that the built-in apps couldn't have been built to the same quality if they were Web apps. But then he told developers to write Web apps. So either he had a "native for us, Web for you" policy or he was just stalling until the App Store was ready. I'm inclined to take him at his word, but considering RDF we may never know for sure.
Or door #3: steve jobs thought 3rd party apps would do more to ruin the experience than to improve it, and all-in-all users were better off without them. Given his control freak tendencies, I'm inclined to believe that last option.
At the time that he said that, did Jobs indicate that web apps on iOS would ever be given hooks into the accelerometers, or GPS, or mic? Because if not, what would the point be?
I remember reading somewhere that they /did/ try to build some of the iphone 1.0 apps as something akin to dashboard widgets and found that the hardware just wasn't quite up to the task, and they were forced to build them as native apps for performance reasons. This says to me that ideologically, they were convinced that the osx dashboard widget method of development was the way to go, but the reality of mobile hardware, combined with their even stronger ideology of responsive user experience made them go native.
Given Apple's counter-intelligence tactics...you still don't know that.
Just like we don't know whether those iPhones were actually "lost" in a bar...both times.
Just like we don't know whether those iPhones were actually "lost" in a bar...both times.
As a web developer who has to implement stupid stuff like the OP's link every single day, for a large corporation that refuses to listen to anything the IT team says... I tend to agree with you.
Web developers aren't always altruistic and some even have some business sense. Not that I agree with the what the 60 minutes site did (at least provide a link to go to the full site!), but pushing a mobile app will give them the opportunity to make money off of app fees (or app subscription services, or ads, or better data, or whatever).
... and slurp up your address book.
> In fact, when presented with the mandate that they needed a mobile app, the web developer probably just wanted to create a nice HTML5 site that could be served up in any tablet or mobile browser without the need to install a special app for their particular device. Know why? Because that is what web developers do.
That's what we did, the first time. We carefully constructed a responsive design that would scale to an iPad resolution and make good use of the screen space, and that would scale again to a smartphone, taking into account single-handed use, UI guidelines for the size of controls so they could be tapped reliably on a high-res screen, and all that jazz.
And we learned in the process how many different ways Apple deliberately break the web browsers in their mobile devices.
They pretend they're on a different size of screen that has no relationship to physical reality, and scale your page accordingly. I'm sure that's great if you really want to see an entire web site squeezed into a few square inches with text too small to read, but it completely breaks the usual CSS tools for building a responsive design.
You can fix that by forcing the viewport size. However, if you do then as soon as the user rotates their iPad the browser zooms the page to show the same content at a different scale instead of actually letting the responsive design do its work by reflowing the layout to take advantage of the new page dimensions while keeping everything at the same size.
You can fix that by setting a maximum zoom level, and a lot of developers stop here, but if you do then you'll sacrifice accessibility for users who genuinely want to zoom because they have imperfect vision and have difficulty enjoying a site at a size that is aimed at a typical visitor.
You can fix that by setting the default zoom instead, detecting an orientation change event, and resetting your overrides each time the page rotates, as long as you can get all the proprietary hooks right and you don't mind either browser sniffing on your server or shoving the extra code to all your users even though most won't benefit.
And so on, and so on.
If Apple want usability for web sites on their iOS devices, they need to stop making it actively difficult for web developers to support their users. A single, simple option that says "make 1px = 1 physical pixel" would be sufficient to fix almost everything they get wrong as far as responsive design goes. Is that really so much to ask?
<cynic> But maybe they don't, because after all they take a hefty cut of the profits on anything you make via an app, so they have a vested interest in pretending to support web standards but actually screwing them up to make app development more attractive. </cynic>
If users don't like the experience they get as a result, there is an easy solution: don't buy Apple products that are shiny but broken, buy something else that works instead. There's no shortage of either good smartphones or good tablets from other sources today.
(Edit: FAOD, the "we" above refers to my team and me, developing our own products. We're not connected to the site linked at the top of this discussion.)
That's what we did, the first time. We carefully constructed a responsive design that would scale to an iPad resolution and make good use of the screen space, and that would scale again to a smartphone, taking into account single-handed use, UI guidelines for the size of controls so they could be tapped reliably on a high-res screen, and all that jazz.
And we learned in the process how many different ways Apple deliberately break the web browsers in their mobile devices.
They pretend they're on a different size of screen that has no relationship to physical reality, and scale your page accordingly. I'm sure that's great if you really want to see an entire web site squeezed into a few square inches with text too small to read, but it completely breaks the usual CSS tools for building a responsive design.
You can fix that by forcing the viewport size. However, if you do then as soon as the user rotates their iPad the browser zooms the page to show the same content at a different scale instead of actually letting the responsive design do its work by reflowing the layout to take advantage of the new page dimensions while keeping everything at the same size.
You can fix that by setting a maximum zoom level, and a lot of developers stop here, but if you do then you'll sacrifice accessibility for users who genuinely want to zoom because they have imperfect vision and have difficulty enjoying a site at a size that is aimed at a typical visitor.
You can fix that by setting the default zoom instead, detecting an orientation change event, and resetting your overrides each time the page rotates, as long as you can get all the proprietary hooks right and you don't mind either browser sniffing on your server or shoving the extra code to all your users even though most won't benefit.
And so on, and so on.
If Apple want usability for web sites on their iOS devices, they need to stop making it actively difficult for web developers to support their users. A single, simple option that says "make 1px = 1 physical pixel" would be sufficient to fix almost everything they get wrong as far as responsive design goes. Is that really so much to ask?
<cynic> But maybe they don't, because after all they take a hefty cut of the profits on anything you make via an app, so they have a vested interest in pretending to support web standards but actually screwing them up to make app development more attractive. </cynic>
If users don't like the experience they get as a result, there is an easy solution: don't buy Apple products that are shiny but broken, buy something else that works instead. There's no shortage of either good smartphones or good tablets from other sources today.
(Edit: FAOD, the "we" above refers to my team and me, developing our own products. We're not connected to the site linked at the top of this discussion.)
While these decisions all sound stupid in principle, when you actually think about it they make a great deal of sense. They all stem from one root requirement:
Regular websites should work with minimum problems on an iOS device.
This is a requirement that made sense when iOS came out years ago, and honestly still makes sense today. It's why browsing on an iOS device is so damn awesome.
That explains the different reported size. Once you have a different reported size, you enter the viewport and zoom issues. But at that point, all the decisions intertwine and make sense amongst themselves.
Now, why isn't there a 1px=1 physical pixel setting? That's a different question. By which I kind of mean, “the retina display is probably the reason there is no such setting”. Regardless, that's a missing feature. The ones that are there all make sense, and aren't nearly as foolish as they sound at first glance.
Regular websites should work with minimum problems on an iOS device.
This is a requirement that made sense when iOS came out years ago, and honestly still makes sense today. It's why browsing on an iOS device is so damn awesome.
That explains the different reported size. Once you have a different reported size, you enter the viewport and zoom issues. But at that point, all the decisions intertwine and make sense amongst themselves.
Now, why isn't there a 1px=1 physical pixel setting? That's a different question. By which I kind of mean, “the retina display is probably the reason there is no such setting”. Regardless, that's a missing feature. The ones that are there all make sense, and aren't nearly as foolish as they sound at first glance.
I agree that the viewport-based rendering makes a lot of sense if you assume that all web sites are not designed for your device. Arguably, it even makes sense as the default behaviour.
My objection is only that if you have a team who are actually willing to go the extra mile and provide a customised UI that plays to each device's specific strengths, it's absurdly difficult for them to get it right.
CSS media queries actually aren't bad for this sort of work in either design or device support these days, give or take some absurdities involving scrollbars. All I want is for all those juicy features to actually tell me about real pixels. Then I can fix my font sizes and icon spacings and graphic dimensions to look pixel-perfect and still remain accessible and draw at a similar physical size on all devices.
My objection is only that if you have a team who are actually willing to go the extra mile and provide a customised UI that plays to each device's specific strengths, it's absurdly difficult for them to get it right.
CSS media queries actually aren't bad for this sort of work in either design or device support these days, give or take some absurdities involving scrollbars. All I want is for all those juicy features to actually tell me about real pixels. Then I can fix my font sizes and icon spacings and graphic dimensions to look pixel-perfect and still remain accessible and draw at a similar physical size on all devices.
I wondered for a long time how it would be handled when screen pixel densities got high enough. There are a couple ways to handle it, and apple took the only one that seems completely backwards compatible: they abstracted the notion of "1px". I guess it couldn't have really evolved any other way, but damn that is messy.
A CSS pixel has never been an actual pixel- it's 1 pixel at 96 dpi
Oh. Thank you. I hadn't known that.
You honestly think they "deliberately break the web browsers in their mobile devices" and are "making it actively difficult for web developers"?
Most of my professional work over the last two years has been targeted at mobile webkit, usually Safari, and while I have frequently felt the urge to defenestrate an iPad due to some weird quirk, I never reached the conclusion that someone had consciously crippled them. Mobile Safari's DOM rendering is all sorts of wacky and requires a frustrating amount of non-intuitive workarounds, but with regards to the orientation issues you mention, browsers haven't really had to deal with rotating displays until fairly recently. So, I can understand not liking the implementation decisions someone made, but attributing it to malice seems a bit absurd.
.. and unless there are some undocumented tricks I haven't come across, I've found web development for Android devices to be a truly unholy mess, significantly worse than Safari.
Most of my professional work over the last two years has been targeted at mobile webkit, usually Safari, and while I have frequently felt the urge to defenestrate an iPad due to some weird quirk, I never reached the conclusion that someone had consciously crippled them. Mobile Safari's DOM rendering is all sorts of wacky and requires a frustrating amount of non-intuitive workarounds, but with regards to the orientation issues you mention, browsers haven't really had to deal with rotating displays until fairly recently. So, I can understand not liking the implementation decisions someone made, but attributing it to malice seems a bit absurd.
.. and unless there are some undocumented tricks I haven't come across, I've found web development for Android devices to be a truly unholy mess, significantly worse than Safari.
> You honestly think they "deliberately break the web browsers in their mobile devices" and are "making it actively difficult for web developers"?
In the sense that they have broken stuff because of decisions they consciously made, yes.
I doubt their motivation was to do that. I'm 90% sure that it was just an unintended (or worse than expected) side effect of trying to do something sensible with sites that weren't designed with mobile browsing in mind.
I do, however, reserve a 10% skepticism allowance for any potentially hostile policy adopted by certain big companies, including Apple and Google, that do have form when it comes to adopting (or turning a blind eye to) ethically shady practices that conveniently help the business model that actually makes them money.
In the sense that they have broken stuff because of decisions they consciously made, yes.
I doubt their motivation was to do that. I'm 90% sure that it was just an unintended (or worse than expected) side effect of trying to do something sensible with sites that weren't designed with mobile browsing in mind.
I do, however, reserve a 10% skepticism allowance for any potentially hostile policy adopted by certain big companies, including Apple and Google, that do have form when it comes to adopting (or turning a blind eye to) ethically shady practices that conveniently help the business model that actually makes them money.
And making an actual app is easier and cheaper than all of this?
That depends on your point of view.
There is a wealth of documentation available on the APIs for programming native apps. In contrast, finding robust, comprehensive documentation for making your web app compatible with any given mobile platform is not so easy, and you need to find it for all platforms that you want to support and then reconcile all the differences.
At least with native apps, you're mostly aiming for clear, stationary targets. Writing an app for a major platform like iOS or Android isn't that hard if you have a programming background. It's the extra hassle of distribution, particularly where App stores and external approvals are involved, that makes it such a chore compared to a web app.
There is a wealth of documentation available on the APIs for programming native apps. In contrast, finding robust, comprehensive documentation for making your web app compatible with any given mobile platform is not so easy, and you need to find it for all platforms that you want to support and then reconcile all the differences.
At least with native apps, you're mostly aiming for clear, stationary targets. Writing an app for a major platform like iOS or Android isn't that hard if you have a programming background. It's the extra hassle of distribution, particularly where App stores and external approvals are involved, that makes it such a chore compared to a web app.
I completely agree that web sites should be accessible to all visitors. The problem seems to be that the developers on many sites have infrastructure that is half a decade old and they are only making minor tweaks. It's easier for them to create a new dev group to build an app than to disturb their delicate website house of cards.
Then there is the issue of privileges available to apps vs. web sites; until the browser supports webkitUploadAddressBook({ stealthy: true }) there will be a strong incentive to develop an app.
Then there is the issue of privileges available to apps vs. web sites; until the browser supports webkitUploadAddressBook({ stealthy: true }) there will be a strong incentive to develop an app.
so web developers are bad at convincing/advising their peers?
You know, since we're over generalizing to empty statements anyways.
You know, since we're over generalizing to empty statements anyways.
Oh yes. We should also mention the horrible broken piece of crap called "Onswipe", that produces a slow, broken, confusing interface that also happens to limit screen space dedicated to reading and breaks built-in Safari zooming.
For some reason people think that they need to have a "Special Tablet Version". You don't! Just have a normal web site, we'll be fine!
The onswipe situation got so bad that whenever I encounter a site using it I immediately click "back" and never come back again.
UPDATE: Oh, I should also mention that half the time when trying to click "back" I actually click the silly Onswipe button in the upper left corner of the screen that pretends to be the back button but actually does something else (takes you to the main blog page I think). Cursing ensues.
For some reason people think that they need to have a "Special Tablet Version". You don't! Just have a normal web site, we'll be fine!
The onswipe situation got so bad that whenever I encounter a site using it I immediately click "back" and never come back again.
UPDATE: Oh, I should also mention that half the time when trying to click "back" I actually click the silly Onswipe button in the upper left corner of the screen that pretends to be the back button but actually does something else (takes you to the main blog page I think). Cursing ensues.
As much as I like the team behind OnSwipe (Jason L Baptiste and Mark Bao in particular), I have to agree with you, unfortunately. Whenever I get this OnSwipe thing replacing a page that was perfectly good and readable, I almost always click back without reading (once the cpu-intensive javascript pauses long enough to allow me to do so).
What's really weird is that the result of OnSwipe being applied is actually a page that is significantly MORE broken. The reason I've developed a habit of clicking back is because I often can't read the article anyway, since the scrolling is usually broken in some annoying way (keeps jumping around, not smooth, etc). This is exceptionally bad considering that the underlying page would almost certainly work just fine.
What's really weird is that the result of OnSwipe being applied is actually a page that is significantly MORE broken. The reason I've developed a habit of clicking back is because I often can't read the article anyway, since the scrolling is usually broken in some annoying way (keeps jumping around, not smooth, etc). This is exceptionally bad considering that the underlying page would almost certainly work just fine.
You could browse on an iPad 1; then, rather than having to click back manually, OnSwipe will helpfully crash Safari so you don't need to bother doing anything yourself.
Amen, brother. How did the current version of OnSwipe pass basic compatibility testing?
Onswipe seduced me too at first but it really is impossible to update or troubleshoot ( God forbid tweak the design...) when it hardly ever works on any of my devices. I didn't realize others felt the same..this discussion has really articulated a lot of my frustration with feeling like there are 8 different internets depending on the device and how recently it was updated
Although I haven't tested this in any meaningful way, I'd be willing to bet OnSwipe simply relies to heavily on JavaScript. My iPad 1 struggles with any page loaded up with scripts, even ones that seem like they might not have any at all. For instance, news websites are often chock full of scripts for analytics, social media plugins, and advertisements.
OnSwipe probably works pretty well on desktop machines where it's developed, but today's tablets simply can't handle the processing and memory requirements necessary to make it an enjoyable experience.
OnSwipe probably works pretty well on desktop machines where it's developed, but today's tablets simply can't handle the processing and memory requirements necessary to make it an enjoyable experience.
Yup. I consider OnSwipe to be sort of a game. Can I recognize the page as an OnSwipe site and successfully click back out before it crashes Safari?
> As much as I like the team behind OnSwipe (Jason L Baptiste and Mark Bao in particular)
I don't. They refuse to respond to OnSwipe issues or complaints in any forum (especially anything referencing an original iPad), be it the various question and answer sites they post to, Hacker News or Twitter. I've complained everywhere and haven't received a single response.
IMO that makes for a pretty terrible team.
I don't. They refuse to respond to OnSwipe issues or complaints in any forum (especially anything referencing an original iPad), be it the various question and answer sites they post to, Hacker News or Twitter. I've complained everywhere and haven't received a single response.
IMO that makes for a pretty terrible team.
I, too, avoid all Onswipe sites. Lost a couple of good blogs that way.
The only thing that's less explicable than Onswipe is its adoption by Automattic for Wordpress.com blogs (WARNING: The following link crashed my iPad 1, what a surprise!)
http://blog.onswipe.com/#!/entry/onswipe-partners-with-autom...
Everyone makes mistakes, and anyone who invents furiously enough will one day design The Doom Device by accident, but who is dumb enough to voluntarily clasp the resulting doom device to their bosom and start putting copies of it in customers' breakfast cereal?
I've said it before, and I wish I was sure I was joking: A big part of the success of iOS apps is that they are generally guaranteed to have been launched more than three times by an actual developer using an actual iOS device.
The only thing that's less explicable than Onswipe is its adoption by Automattic for Wordpress.com blogs (WARNING: The following link crashed my iPad 1, what a surprise!)
http://blog.onswipe.com/#!/entry/onswipe-partners-with-autom...
Everyone makes mistakes, and anyone who invents furiously enough will one day design The Doom Device by accident, but who is dumb enough to voluntarily clasp the resulting doom device to their bosom and start putting copies of it in customers' breakfast cereal?
I've said it before, and I wish I was sure I was joking: A big part of the success of iOS apps is that they are generally guaranteed to have been launched more than three times by an actual developer using an actual iOS device.
100% agree: SWIPEWARE is the biggest abomination in usability ever invented (and deployed at massive scale)
It's really simple, I believe they serve up their videos with Flash which your tablet doesn't support. Flash for video isn't going away yet in many cases because HTML 5 video is still lacking all of the security features sites like this one require. So they did the next best thing, they built a custom app for your platform which gave them the security they desired and you a full user experience.
Edit: Just confirmed I can watch their videos on my Android tablet, thus it's just a lack of Flash that caused this. In fact on my ASUS Slider they are playing perfectly.
Edit: Just confirmed I can watch their videos on my Android tablet, thus it's just a lack of Flash that caused this. In fact on my ASUS Slider they are playing perfectly.
Consequently, Apple should provide a secure way for outfits like 60 Minutes to publish video to iPads without the outfit having to have an iPad app.
They do. The BBC use it for the web-based version of the iPlayer, for example. (which only works on iOS devices and various set-top boxes and web-connected TVs - try it in the iOS Simulator or any other desktop browser with a spoofed user agent and it'll fail)
Basically, the (HTTPS) server can require the client to provide a special Apple-signed client certificate, which the server then verifies. If verification fails, it closes the connection. If it succeeds, the video is transmitted encrypted (SSL) and plays back just like any other <video> tag.
There's also a variant that lets you statically encrypt the video and serve it via Apple's "HTTP Live Streaming" protocol, with the keys for decryption downloaded via the client-certificate-authenticated SSL connection described above. This lets you avoid the overhead of SSL for gigs and gigs of data, as you only have to encrypt the files once, offline.
Basically, the (HTTPS) server can require the client to provide a special Apple-signed client certificate, which the server then verifies. If verification fails, it closes the connection. If it succeeds, the video is transmitted encrypted (SSL) and plays back just like any other <video> tag.
There's also a variant that lets you statically encrypt the video and serve it via Apple's "HTTP Live Streaming" protocol, with the keys for decryption downloaded via the client-certificate-authenticated SSL connection described above. This lets you avoid the overhead of SSL for gigs and gigs of data, as you only have to encrypt the files once, offline.
And the "security" that they desired lost them tablet users on the dominant tablet platform...brilliant!
It's not even like these are major motion pictures. They are clips from a television news program that are released for free over the air and have an effective shelf life of less than two weeks. The potential downside to posting their videos in iPad compatible h.264 seems minuscule.
Not to mention that once you've seen one 60 Minutes episode, you've seen them all. It's a legendary formula, but tired as hell.
Blame 60 Minutes for using the most ubiquitous web video technology instead of blaming Apple for not supporting it.
Android has dropped Flash, too, for anything beyond ICS.
So has Microsoft for the new Metro browser.
So has Adobe, for that matter, if you read between the lines (yeah, they've only "officially" dropped mobile Flash, but desktop Flash is on deathwatch).
A year from now neither any new mobile device nor the default browser on desktop Windows will have Flash.
Time to learn some new tools.
So has Microsoft for the new Metro browser.
So has Adobe, for that matter, if you read between the lines (yeah, they've only "officially" dropped mobile Flash, but desktop Flash is on deathwatch).
A year from now neither any new mobile device nor the default browser on desktop Windows will have Flash.
Time to learn some new tools.
Adobe has dropped android, not the other way around.
Right, because I can't think of any reason why Apple wouldn't support Flash on a mobile device...
I didn't see the author of the piece mention it anywhere, but this is clearly because his friend sent him a link to a video which is delivered via Flash. 60 Minutes video segments on the CBS News site don't have any associated text below them. He'd have been better served by his friend sending him the link to the associated article instead.
(...or is this so blindingly obvious that it just doesn't warrant a mention?)
IIRC on the iPad, even YouTube links open the YouTube app. Not sure what happens if you don't have the app installed - does it ask you to download the app instead?
Edit: I suppose one could make the argument that if the CBS News website can serve up different stuff to the iPad, then they might as well serve up what's compatible instead..
(...or is this so blindingly obvious that it just doesn't warrant a mention?)
IIRC on the iPad, even YouTube links open the YouTube app. Not sure what happens if you don't have the app installed - does it ask you to download the app instead?
Edit: I suppose one could make the argument that if the CBS News website can serve up different stuff to the iPad, then they might as well serve up what's compatible instead..
YouTube links do open the YouTube app, but embedded YouTube videos also work just fine inline. If you open youtube.com in the browser, videos also play in the browser. Vimeo and other video sites also play directly in the browser, no app required.
You can't play Flash video in the browser, but that doesn't mean you can't play video in the browser.
You can't play Flash video in the browser, but that doesn't mean you can't play video in the browser.
Until you meet a monetized video, and will likely be "not available on mobile", since they cant prevent you easily copying that video etc etc.
Has there been any movement on a secure way to use the <video> tag yet?
Has there been any movement on a secure way to use the <video> tag yet?
The security of Flash video is a myth, as rtmpdump has had RTMPE support for a long time (though Flash has been ahead of the cat and mouse game for temporary periods), and Replay Video Catcher provides a more general solution. "Securing" HTML5 video would be a shameful waste of time, as it would inevitably mess up Linux etc. with no actual benefit to publishers.
It doesn't have to be 100% secure, it just has to be more secure than right click -> save as. Torrent sites aren't getting their content from Hulu or Netflix.
Securing HTML5 video is the only way we're going to have Hollywood content stream over the web again. That's just reality. But it's looking more and more like these types of appwalls are what the future holds for the web.
Securing HTML5 video is the only way we're going to have Hollywood content stream over the web again. That's just reality. But it's looking more and more like these types of appwalls are what the future holds for the web.
Torrent sites don't derive content from Hulu or Netflix because the quality is poorer than iTunes. There's no conceivable reason for pirates to settle for a 1 mbps Netflix stream when the 6 mbps iTunes is available.
It has nothing to do with the security. (Heck, iTunes video has some kind of DRM attached.)
It has nothing to do with the security. (Heck, iTunes video has some kind of DRM attached.)
I really wish people wouldn't use "secure" to mean "laden with broken DRM and other misfeatures that serve publishers by antagonizing users." That's not "secure," that "broken."
Yeah, YouTube has been serving up HTML5 video along with Flash for quite a while now (presumably based on some kind of browser sniffing, though I think you can configure your account to send it to the desktop as well, if you're logged in).
"Not sure what happens if you don't have the app installed - does it ask you to download the app instead?"
FWIW Apple handles this by preinstalling and not allowing you to remove the YouTube app.
For other use cases there are a couple of ad-hoc systems that guide you to the App Store, namely a Game Center invite for a game that's not installed and plugging in an accessory that has a companion app that's not installed.
FWIW Apple handles this by preinstalling and not allowing you to remove the YouTube app.
For other use cases there are a couple of ad-hoc systems that guide you to the App Store, namely a Game Center invite for a game that's not installed and plugging in an accessory that has a companion app that's not installed.
Like other's have said, this is not the developer's decision. In fact it was things like this that made me quit my job to go freelance.
Me and the other developers would spend literally hours explaining and re-explaining why links to external sites should not be opened in a new window. But because some marketing douchebag once said it was a good idea, our pleas went un-heard.
In short, don't blame the developers, admittedly a small portion of the blame is with them for not fighting hard enough, or being prepared to walk away. But the vast majority of the blame lies higher up the food chain.
Me and the other developers would spend literally hours explaining and re-explaining why links to external sites should not be opened in a new window. But because some marketing douchebag once said it was a good idea, our pleas went un-heard.
In short, don't blame the developers, admittedly a small portion of the blame is with them for not fighting hard enough, or being prepared to walk away. But the vast majority of the blame lies higher up the food chain.
I'm curious, why is opening external links in a new window a bad idea? Just breaking the flow of navigation?
As a user, assuming by "new window" he also means "new tab", I would always prefer external links to open in a new tab. I don't want to click a link half way through an article and suddenly have the new page replace my current one. Because hey, I was reading that.
If he is specifically talking about arguing against opening in a new window as opposed to a new tab then I'm behind him 100%. Why would you even do that? It makes no sense.
I would be interested in clarification however. And if he is arguing against opening new tabs, why?
Edit: Unless he is talking about a pre-tab era?
If he is specifically talking about arguing against opening in a new window as opposed to a new tab then I'm behind him 100%. Why would you even do that? It makes no sense.
I would be interested in clarification however. And if he is arguing against opening new tabs, why?
Edit: Unless he is talking about a pre-tab era?
As a user, I like to remain in control of whether it should open on a new tab or not. I hate sites that decide for me.
After both your posts I just realised that yes, it is better to let it overwrite the page, because the option is there for the user to override this with the middle-click.
I've middle clicked all links for so long that I didn't even think about the fact I was choosing to open things in a new tab.
Thanks for changing my mind.
Thanks for changing my mind.
As you hint in your own response, it's a personal preference (and some browsers will even let you set it). I think it's a good convention that clicking a link replaces the current page, since it was established in the pre-tab/pre-multiple window era and thus follows the principle of least surprise. Besides, you'd be amazed at the number of users that don't know how to close tabs, so it's a bit more resource-friendly to abandon the last page (especially on tablets).
That said, I tend to middle-click links so they open in new tabs if I don't want to lose my place (especially here on HN), and I'm happy to have that option. I have no idea what tablet users can do in that situation. On my Android phone, I make heavier use of the back button, history and bookmarks compared to my desktop surfing.
That said, I tend to middle-click links so they open in new tabs if I don't want to lose my place (especially here on HN), and I'm happy to have that option. I have no idea what tablet users can do in that situation. On my Android phone, I make heavier use of the back button, history and bookmarks compared to my desktop surfing.
On at least one Android browser I've used, holding my finger on a link for a second or two pops up an option to open the link in a new window.
This decision was made by sales / marketing. The people who pay the developer.
Go work at a big company where you are a cost center (they make their money from ad sales not your web innovation) and you'll get to implement the same dumb crap as this.
Go work at a big company where you are a cost center (they make their money from ad sales not your web innovation) and you'll get to implement the same dumb crap as this.
My pet peeve is deep links that get redirected to the mobile home page.
That and sites that open in "mobile mode" on a tablet. 10x7 should be plenty of pixels for your normal site.
That and sites that open in "mobile mode" on a tablet. 10x7 should be plenty of pixels for your normal site.
There is another concern besides screen space -- bandwidth. Since a mobile device can be accessing the site over 3G as well as WiFi, where bandwidth is at a premium, it is better to serve up the smaller mobile version.
I hadn't thought of that. I've only recently gotten a 3G-capable iPad, and I did manage to rack up 121MB in a few hours of browsing.
There is a variant of this which is to auto-detect mobile browsers and redirect from "desktop" urls to the mobile homepage. This behavior is so massively brain dead it's ridiculous. If you're not going to do a smart redirect to the proper mobile version of the actual individual page then in most cases it's best to just serve up the desktop page.
That whole internet/hyperlink/REST thing that we developed over the last 20 years? That was just a stop gap while we transitioned from mouse pointers to capacitive touch screens. Now that we point with our fingers instead of our hands, we need to reinvent the architecture of shared information.
On my Galaxy Nexus I have an option "Load the Desktop version of this site". I don't see this option in the new Chrome Beta though. On iOS I had to jailbreak and install an SBSettings toggle to change Safari's UA, which restarted it, but then it worked more reliably than the one in my Android. But yeah, not having to root or jailbreak and getting the functionality I need is one of the long list of reasons I will never look back to Apple's ecosystem. The future is open, the future is web apps, and there is no place for closed ecosystems no matter how rich or extensive they may look now. Give people open tools and we can have more web apps than app store has apps in a very rapid time.
Dolphin allows you to choose your user agent on Android. I'm starting to really like Dolphin...
The author does not _want_ to download an app because it is "antisocial use of public bandwidth". What exactly is social use of the bandwidth then? Is this kind of attitude common?
Furthermore, the author was just about to stream a video which would likely be much larger than the app itself.
I agree to an extent; I try to avoid downloading apps when I'm not on WiFi - mobile internet is slow enough as it is!
I'd be very uncomfortable downloading an app on a foreign network simply because a single web page told me to do so. I'm sure I'm more paranoid than most, but that's an easy way to get phished. I'm surprised the author didn't cite that as a reason.
Makess sense when you see how much mobile data costs.
"Why do so many web developers think that tablets are an excuse to break the functionality of the web?"
Web developers have been breaking the functionality of the web for years. A lot of 'feature-rich' web apps today are almost unusable on a mobile device, much less for a disabled person. So instead of making a 'mobile friendly' version of their site, they made an app.
Maybe some day they'll find it cheaper and easier to just make one site that works for all devices. But that probably sounds crazy.
Web developers have been breaking the functionality of the web for years. A lot of 'feature-rich' web apps today are almost unusable on a mobile device, much less for a disabled person. So instead of making a 'mobile friendly' version of their site, they made an app.
Maybe some day they'll find it cheaper and easier to just make one site that works for all devices. But that probably sounds crazy.
it is totally awesome when sites offer a crappy ancient mobile version of the site that doesn't actually remember the page you wanted to go to.
it is even more offen when they offer a crazy javascript version of the site that crashes if you try to "swipe" to the next page.
it is even more offen when they offer a crazy javascript version of the site that crashes if you try to "swipe" to the next page.
They're a scourge. In Terms of overall annoyance, it's ironic that Apps are quietly ecoming the new Flash.
Useful titles, that work well in RSS and search need to be enforced, else we will get a situation like Reddit's front page, which is currently full of meaningless clickbait titles.
All HN Posters Should Stop Doing This Immediately.
I wonder, if it's just a lacking sense of communication.
For example, a friend of mine sends me emails like "Do you have a minute. I've got a question.", "There's something we should talk about.", without mentioning what's the actual purpose of his messages. I would expect at least a keyword. More than once I tried to stop him from doing this - without success.
I wonder, if it's just a lacking sense of communication.
For example, a friend of mine sends me emails like "Do you have a minute. I've got a question.", "There's something we should talk about.", without mentioning what's the actual purpose of his messages. I would expect at least a keyword. More than once I tried to stop him from doing this - without success.
CBSNews (powering Gamespot and a load of other content sites) are f---ing terrible at mobile interaction. View a site link on a mobile device and they'll serve you a mobile version of their front page. That's it.
You've then got to click 'full site' to see the full frontpage and set your preference cookie, and then press back a few times to retry your original request.
You've then got to click 'full site' to see the full frontpage and set your preference cookie, and then press back a few times to retry your original request.
You know what else bothers me on mobile browsing. There are some websites where I can't zoom in on the iPhone. I've tried researching it so I could make a bookmarklett or something to disable that, but I can't find what's causing it. Does anyone know?
This also put forward the problem of table and mobile apps behaving as isolated information processing silos.
I wouldn't say it breaks the web, but it is clearly missing a fundamental and significant property of the web and from this perspective it is a regression.
I wouldn't say it breaks the web, but it is clearly missing a fundamental and significant property of the web and from this perspective it is a regression.
This isn't just on tablets but all mobile devices to some extent. People assume a context based on the browser's user agent string. A good tradeoff is a banner at the top of the page, with a link to the app.
I've also seen people remove information from a site for mobile users as its less important. If content isn't important to show to some users then it's likely it shouldn't be shown at all.
Another assumption web developers make is that mobile users won't be browsing certain pages that advertise a mobile site or app. I've seen many blog posts saying "check out our new mobile sites at m.example.com", using the bold tag to show its a URL instead of an HTML link.
I've also seen people remove information from a site for mobile users as its less important. If content isn't important to show to some users then it's likely it shouldn't be shown at all.
Another assumption web developers make is that mobile users won't be browsing certain pages that advertise a mobile site or app. I've seen many blog posts saying "check out our new mobile sites at m.example.com", using the bold tag to show its a URL instead of an HTML link.
A friend sends me a link to a 60 Minutes segment she feels it's important I watch. I'm on an iPad -- not that it matters ... There is no alternative -- no way to click through to the video or text that I was after
Somewhere like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7398478n ?
...
<div id="flashvideocontent">
So, no there is no way to click through to the video you were after because you are on an iPad, and iPad's do not have Adobe Flash. That means if you want to see the link that your friend sent, then you are going to have to download an app. Blame Apple and Adobe, not the website.
Somewhere like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7398478n ?
...
<div id="flashvideocontent">
So, no there is no way to click through to the video you were after because you are on an iPad, and iPad's do not have Adobe Flash. That means if you want to see the link that your friend sent, then you are going to have to download an app. Blame Apple and Adobe, not the website.
"So, no there is no way to click through to the video"
Because the site set it up that way. Intentionally. So, yes, I blame the site.
Sites with a clue (like YouTube and Vimeo) have been serving HTML5 video for a couple of years now.
It's just a matter of adding another step to your automated transcoding workflow (you have one, right?)
For a small indie site the disk space consumed by keeping video in 2 or 3 different formats might be an issue, but for CBS?
Because the site set it up that way. Intentionally. So, yes, I blame the site.
Sites with a clue (like YouTube and Vimeo) have been serving HTML5 video for a couple of years now.
It's just a matter of adding another step to your automated transcoding workflow (you have one, right?)
For a small indie site the disk space consumed by keeping video in 2 or 3 different formats might be an issue, but for CBS?
Yet youtube videos work on the iPad.. hmm..
I have been fortunate enough that when my bosses come to me and say "we want an iPhone app" I can explain why this is a bad business decision and they listen to me. A native app should not just be a little button for your web content.
Awesome, I'm not the only one that hates apps that are nothing more than a browser for a single website. What are people thinking, that we like to have a separate app for every website we enjoy visiting? Have they actually ever used a smartphone/tablet?
If your website links to other sites and you load that in Safari again? Guess what, you just lost me. I'm not going to close Safari and load your app again, whereas closing a new tab would have returned me to your site. The same thing happens when your in-app browser just isn't up to scratch: I'll have to copy-paste the address into Safari and I'm annoyed and gone.
If your website links to other sites and you load that in Safari again? Guess what, you just lost me. I'm not going to close Safari and load your app again, whereas closing a new tab would have returned me to your site. The same thing happens when your in-app browser just isn't up to scratch: I'll have to copy-paste the address into Safari and I'm annoyed and gone.
A few days ago I had an article that was popular on HN. I was watching my live Analytics tracking and saw that I had an inbound referral from "chat.stackexchange.com"- I looked up the full URL, and tried it in my browser.
Just like that, I was in the chat room discussing the topic of my post with the people that had found it. It occurred to me that if they were using almost any other kind of chat system (like an app, but also including IRC) I would never have been able to do that. It's a shame, but I suppose there are also privacy concerns at stake.
Just like that, I was in the chat room discussing the topic of my post with the people that had found it. It occurred to me that if they were using almost any other kind of chat system (like an app, but also including IRC) I would never have been able to do that. It's a shame, but I suppose there are also privacy concerns at stake.
Isn't the real problem here that instead of an honest statement about why the app needs to be downloaded (ie. no Flash on the iPad), something looking like an advertisement is served instead? That the author assumed the worst might be due to the apparent dishonesty rather than any paranoia on the author's part.
Of course, the problem might be a little more complicated, because some less adept users seeing that a website will not load on their device might blame those who made the website.
Still, CBS's solution clearly isn't the one making lemonade out of lemons.
Of course, the problem might be a little more complicated, because some less adept users seeing that a website will not load on their device might blame those who made the website.
Still, CBS's solution clearly isn't the one making lemonade out of lemons.
Have you tried using a different browser and changing your user-agent?
Another thing: we need a "tablet" mode for websites, that is distinct from "mobile." Several websites assume I am on a phone when I visit them with my Galaxy Tab, and enforce the use of a tiny font. Perhaps ironically, on these "mobile" websites, zooming seems to be broken, whereas on regular websites I can double-tap and it will zoom in to make the font size bigger and reflow the paragraph to fit my device. Examples are Slashdot and Live Journal, but there are others.
Even though IMDB have a mobile site (automatically redirects you to m.imdb.com), it STILL prompts you to download the app every single time you visit. Extremely annoying.
This decision has nothing to do with web developers. These are the kinds of choices made by those who don't understand the usability implications of their decisions.
> Why do so many web developers think that tablets are an excuse to break the functionality of the web?
ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, INTERNET, PROCESS_OUTGOING_CALLS, READ_CALENDAR, READ_CONTACTS, READ_HISTORY_BOOKMARKS, READ_PROFILE, READ_SMS, READ_SOCIAL_STREAM, SUBSCRIBED_FEEDS_READ
user: scroll, scroll, grumble, scroll, scroll, scroll, finally!, ALLOW
ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, INTERNET, PROCESS_OUTGOING_CALLS, READ_CALENDAR, READ_CONTACTS, READ_HISTORY_BOOKMARKS, READ_PROFILE, READ_SMS, READ_SOCIAL_STREAM, SUBSCRIBED_FEEDS_READ
user: scroll, scroll, grumble, scroll, scroll, scroll, finally!, ALLOW
Native apps do have a persistence advantage over HTML. My apps for the WSJ, FT and Economist download entire issues for availability offline. I haven't seen that done in HTML.
In terms of web breakage, these all offer urls to the same article on the web page, so they don't break the web going into the sites. I haven't seen them use outbound links.
In terms of web breakage, these all offer urls to the same article on the web page, so they don't break the web going into the sites. I haven't seen them use outbound links.
It's not just tablets, I get that junk on my other android and iOS devices (nook, phone, etc) all the time now.
For some reason the news sites seem to be the worst offenders.
It feels very much like the paywall thing that devastated so many newspaper sites a few years back. Despite having highly desirable content, they just don't get the internet (still).
For some reason the news sites seem to be the worst offenders.
It feels very much like the paywall thing that devastated so many newspaper sites a few years back. Despite having highly desirable content, they just don't get the internet (still).
Web developers need conscientious objector status when tasked with building features they know are bad for the web.
The cynical answer is because once you install an app they can
* Push ads to you even when you're not viewing their content * Read your address book
I hate it too. I also hate sites that ask me to install their app every time I visit. No, I don't want the IMDB app nor do I want the Rottentomatoes app, etc etc..
Unfortunately the majority seem to love it :-(
* Push ads to you even when you're not viewing their content * Read your address book
I hate it too. I also hate sites that ask me to install their app every time I visit. No, I don't want the IMDB app nor do I want the Rottentomatoes app, etc etc..
Unfortunately the majority seem to love it :-(
Web developers may not be responsible but they are sensible enough to advocate against such an approach. I have also come across the same issue on my Android phone and even after installing their stupid app, I still get prompted to download it. I gave their app the minimum possible rating.
The irony is that their app will probably just be a framed browser view anyways...
IMO this is part Safari's fault for not giving you the option of acting like a desktop browser and not being able to run Flash. The former can be solved by downloading a different ipad browser.
Isn't there a user agent switcher for iPad? That would seem to be the easy fix for such annoyances. (I don't have an iPad, but it seems like an obvious thing that would be available.)
Or: All Technical Savvy People Should Stop Buying A Device Entirely Built Around Apps Over The Web And Then Complain They Have To Download Apps.
(or buy it and don't complain, that's fine too)
(or buy it and don't complain, that's fine too)
Is there any way to change the user agent on the iPhone or iPad? Maybe someone could start a proxy for iPhones that could do this?
Equally frustrating: when the no scale attribute is set for sites that are not optimized for viewing on mobile or tablet screens.
All Content Posters Should Start Writing Headlines That Don't Remind Me Of Reddit.
> It feels like vandalism. This is what hackers do.
He lost me here. Too bad it was almost the end of the article and I also agreed with him.
He lost me here. Too bad it was almost the end of the article and I also agreed with him.
I thought it was an interesting comparison.
Although I would disagree with it in the sense that any real hacker would likely come up with a far more creative defacement. :-)
Although I would disagree with it in the sense that any real hacker would likely come up with a far more creative defacement. :-)
[deleted]
This has nothing to do with web developers, they don't make the decisions there. A bunch of marketing bimbo's do.
It's too uncommon to find this kind of article(rants) on Technology Review.
Is there a way to change your User-Agent in the iPad browser?
Not in Safari, but there are other browsers like Terra (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/terra-web-browser-tabs-full/i...) that let you select a User-Agent. Sites that do this are pretty much the only reason I have Terra on my iPad.
You can change it in Safari, but only if you Jailbreak. In fact, it's one of the first apps Cydia recommends to you (I'm using it to identify as desktop Safari, and it's blissful!)
[deleted]
Totally wrong forum/place to complain. Here at HN people love that a lot! Because there was some time ago some post where on iPad I arrived on app download page - so I posted comment a'la "what shit is this" and got massively downvoted for that.
It gets my goat when people complain of having been downvoted for saying 'the exact same thing', when something else in line with a previous sentiment is heavily upvoted. (Maybe I just need to develop a greater Internet forum tolerance..)
You seem to be referring to this comment[1]. Actually speaking though, you weren't downvoted because people disagreed, but because your comment:
1) didn't add anything to the discussion at hand
2) wasn't particularly coherent
3) set no context whatsoever for your discontent (were you on an iPad? some other mobile device? does it seem like a common occurrence?)
I've made my fair share off-topic rants about the submission's readability and other annoyances (and seen other such comments) that were reasonably 'well received' by the community because it actually set the tone for a discussion.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3173014
You seem to be referring to this comment[1]. Actually speaking though, you weren't downvoted because people disagreed, but because your comment:
1) didn't add anything to the discussion at hand
2) wasn't particularly coherent
3) set no context whatsoever for your discontent (were you on an iPad? some other mobile device? does it seem like a common occurrence?)
I've made my fair share off-topic rants about the submission's readability and other annoyances (and seen other such comments) that were reasonably 'well received' by the community because it actually set the tone for a discussion.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3173014
I wasn't complaining at all. I was ironic, but as I got downvoted for that too, then irony i guess, is also not welcome here...
People here want something that makes them think. They go out of their way to reject posts for which the primary responses are simple agreement ("me too") or disagreement ("is not").
Perhaps you simply weren't being ironic in a sufficiently interesting way.
Perhaps you simply weren't being ironic in a sufficiently interesting way.
In fact, when presented with the mandate that they needed a mobile app, the web developer probably just wanted to create a nice HTML5 site that could be served up in any tablet or mobile browser without the need to install a special app for their particular device. Know why? Because that is what web developers do.