On 4 May 2014 18:52, <[email protected]> wrote: > First of all, you speak about FxOS 1.2+. I think you're mistaken, you > wanted to speak about FxOS 1.3+ > yes, the simulator exists for 1.2, but the differences between 1.1 and 1.2 > are not big, while the support for flexboxes arrives in 1.3 (and Gecko 28) > see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/B2G_Landing > and https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/28.0/releasenotes/ >
You are correct, perhaps I should have said 1.3 instead of 1.2. I mentioned 1.2 because it implements single-line flexboxes, and I thought I had seen it performing better in some flexbox examples, but maybe I got confused at some point. Let's say 1.3+ then. > the categories you've given are still developers ;) So, it's our work to > know which technology is available or not (moreover, the MDN is very clear > on it! see > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/CSS/Flexible_boxes?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=CSS%2FTutorials%2FUsing_CSS_flexible_boxes#Browser_compatibilityfor > the flexbox example) > Sure they are all developers, but I wanted to separate them into categories based on how they may become aware of the limitations. I actually disagree that MDN is very clear on it. MDN does make an effort to be clear, but it is not necessarily always successful. In the example you mention, that page displays the compatible Gecko versions. From there to FxOS version there's another research step, as developers won't necessarily know the mapping by heart, or even be aware of it. The way I see it, new developers will arrive and follow the steps outlined on the Quickstart guide: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/QuickstartAt some point they'll follow the links on it and visit https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Design, which encourages the use of flexboxes. A newly arrived developer is not going to even be aware of these problems, and probably won't even realise until they test the app on their own device (assuming they have a 1.0.1/1.1 handset). Yes, MDN makes an effort to list support levels for each feature, but also suffers from: * Lack of a clear route for new developers to follow. Instead there's a quickstart page that then sends them off to unrelated, generic pages on MDN that explain things, but not from the perspective they need. * Information density. There's so much that newly arrived developers will have difficulties knowing what to look at, and what is actually relevant to them. I don't mean to say that MDN is not a great resource: it is great indeed. It's just that it doesn't necessarily fulfill those specific needs. This is in the same way as Wikipedia is not great as a standalone history course because you'd not even know where to start from. Yes and no. You can find some applications that have in their description > "only run on FxOS 1.3 or above". If you specify it, the reviewer will test > your application with a compatible version of FxOS ;) > Yeah, that's actually great. It has the problem that some developers won't even be aware of their incompatibility with old versions, but hopefully reviewers will catch those. > And to answer Pablo Brasero Moreno: > > I completely agree with you, and the system of autodetection of Mozilla is > a good idea (an app that needs geolocation will not be installable on a > device that doesn't have it). > HOWEVER, this detection is only on JavaScript APIs. I use flexbox in my > app, so my app is only available for 1.3+, but there is no detection for > it, nor the user will be told that the app won't run on its device! > unless the user know its current version of FxOS and read the complete > description of the app. You know lots of people that are not in IT that > even know what's the name of their phone OS? > Sure, I think we have a misunderstanding here. Of course there does need to be that filtering. People can't be expected to know or not whether their device supports this API or that CSS property. When I asked what kind of users have FxOS phones, I was wondering whether there are actually any users who are not tech savvy. Simply because I can't see the marketing angle to sell these devices to non-techies at the moment. There perfectly can be one, but since I don't know the markets, I can't see it myself. The reason for my asking that is that, if there are no "real" end users yet, all this may not be a problem yet. We have time to develop apps and catch up in terms of apps, functionality, etc, to make the phones appealing to markets. -- Pablo Brasero Moreno [email protected] _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
