ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Olivier Tilloy <olivier.tilloy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Mitchell Reese
<dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Peter, thanks for starting this discussion - you bring up some really
> good points.
>
> Firstly, I think having webapps so well supported has been a great move by
> Canonical - its one of the things I like best about this new platform. The
> fact that I can have multiple websites open as their own application - and
> behaving like their own application - is enormously beneficial. The fact
> also that webapps are so easy to create front-end clients for is also really
> great - all the work is being done on the server side. As a first step to
> adding functionality to the platform, I think its been a great move.
>
> The issues come from implementation, as you've already pointed out. The
> navigation bar at the top is one problem - many webapps have these, and
> don't need them. Others need some kind of navigation, and leave it in. I
> agree it would be better to find a different solution, however the default
> container has its benefits.
>
> Ogra's alternative webapp is a great idea, but is missing several recently
> (last month or so) implemented features. Navigating outside of the webapp
> container now pulls up that site from the bottom of the screen, which I can
> close at anytime, rather than opening the browser. (this is awesome!) Also,
> copy and paste now works on rc-proposed - this hasn't been implemented with
> Ogra's container yet. Not sure what the plan is with these features, and if
> Oliver is interested in adding them, but that's already a couple
> differences.

It’d be great to integrate Ogra’s bottom edge navigation controls into
the existing webapp container, maybe with a command-line switch to
enable them instead of the standard, boring, screen real-estate killer
top-bar.
With this we’d ensure no more copy/paste of the same piece of code all
over the place, and all the benefits of the existing webapp container.

It would need to go through a design review, but given its popularity
already I’m sure it would be deemed a good idea.

> In terms of always defaulting to the bottom edge navigation, several apps
> won't work well with this. I.e. - this wouldn't work for the ABC
> (Australian) Radio's website, which I've created an app for (not great as
> there's no content hub support yet), or the Sydney Morning Herald's mobile
> website, which uses the bottom edge for social media. While I love the
> bottom edge implementation, it doesn't work for all situations.
>
> What would be better would be a template that gives options - this form of
> navigation could be one of them. And yes, a simple configuration file would
> be easier, so devs don't need to hunt through the main.qml file unless
> needed for something else.
>
> Part of the problem with webapps though comes from how easy it is to create
> them - I'm guilty of this myself - and that until someone learns what they
> are doing, its very easy to create crap ones. I.e. - a decent webapp
> requires lots of testing to get the web-url matching patterns right, or its
> pretty pointless. Then there's account integration (if needed), content-hub
> support, navigation options (fullscreen? navigation bar?), url-matching from
> scopes and other apps, splash screen, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, its very easy to publish crap webapps to the Ubuntu Store -
> its also very easy to publish really good ones, but most people don't take
> the time to do it. Also, for whatever reason, there was a webpage canonical
> published where people could create webapps from a simple form without using
> the sdk - I think this was a really bad idea. There was no pattern matching
> possible, and I suspect this has helped flood the store with useless 'site
> bookmarks'.
>
> So yep, I agree with you that the container needs work, and it would be cool
> to see bottom edge navigation worked into it. I just don't think this should
> be default in all cases - or if it is, it should be easy to turn this off.
> Also, I think the concept of webapps - and the features this platform is
> supporting them with - are awesome. I think the crap nature of many of the
> webapps in the store stems from people who haven't gotten their heads around
> it yet - not sure what to do about that yet.

Maybe the documentation can be improved to insist on all the benefits
of the integration hooks the webapp model offers, as opposed to a
plain webpage bookmark?


> On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 3:44:03 AM AEST, Peter Bittner wrote:
>>
>> Hi webapp developers,
>>
>> I see quite a few webapps on the Ubuntu Store that simply wrap a
>> website, and, probably in fear of situations that require a back
>> button, they show the address bar by default. Personally, I feel
>> that's almost worse than providing a simple link to the website opened
>> in the default web browser, because you have no real benefit of having
>> a webapp. The main downside is precious screen real estate is wasted
>> for an address bar you can't even manipulate.
>>
>> Other users seem to have similar feelings, that's why those kind of
>> apps get unpleased (and unpleasant) review comments. In the end it's a
>> problem for the whole platform: We'll get a bunch full of frustrating
>> webapps that provide little to no benefit, and make Ubuntu Touch look
>> like a lousy platform where you "first have to dig yourself through
>> the mud of useless apps" (a future review in computer magazine may
>> say).
>>
>> (Disclaimer) Let me note that webapps in the end are not useless per
>> se, in my opinion. They can provide significant value over simply
>> running the same mobile application in the web browser. And not having
>> the address bar wasting precious screen real estate is just one major
>> benefit.
>>
>> So, why doesn't Ubuntu Touch provide and promote something like the
>> ogra webapp container [1] as the default for running webapps in order
>> to help lazy webapp developers (myself included)? There should really
>> be no need to activate an address bar when I can have the back and
>> forward button to my rescue with a swipe up from the lower edge of the
>> screen. (See the uApp Explorer webapp [3] for a demo.) If these
>> options (Home, Back, Forward, Reload) were in the bottom edge menu by
>> default, even better. The menu should be able to be extended or
>> overridden by a simple addition of options in a webapp config file. No
>> strict need to add QML code or so for simple shortcuts. (Webapps using
>> this container currently do copy the QML code and change it, which is
>> suboptimal in my opinion.)
>>
>> Note that there is also another alternate webapp container [2] demoed
>> e.g. by the fantastic "Google Apps" webapp [4], which however I find a
>> bit confusing with its dual-function bottom edge menu.
>>
>> Bottom line: There should be no more webapps with address bars in the
>> Ubuntu Store. (Unless this provides a significant benefit for a
>> specific application, of course. I wouldn't know of any such app at
>> the moment, though.)
>>
>> [1] https://launchpad.net/alternate-webapp-container
>> [2] https://launchpad.net/alternate-webapp-container-v2
>> [3] https://uappexplorer.com/app/uappexplorer.bhdouglass
>> [4] https://uappexplorer.com/app/googleapps.mattirn
>>
>> What's Canonical's opinion or plans on that?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent using Dekko from my Ubuntu device
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp