Pabo, I am happy to report that 1.1 Simulator is getting some more love again and that it should work in your latest FF some time soon: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001590 .
/Harald Partner Engineer & Web Craftsman | [email protected] From: Pablo Brasero Moreno [email protected] Reply: Pablo Brasero Moreno [email protected] Date: May 13, 2014 at 7:37:46 AM To: Chris Mills [email protected] Cc: [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] Subject: Re: Baseline target platform Chris, that's amazing. Yes, I agree that the action points proposed would greatly alleviate the problems I describe. Something else that could be improved is the support for the 1.1 simulator. It used to work on my Aurora 30, but it has stopped now, forcing me to install Firefox 25 on the side. Of course that's separate from MDN though. Thank you, On 12 May 2014 10:45, Chris Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pablo, > > I’m Chris Mills from the MDN team, and I’ve been reading this thread with > great interest. Thanks for the insights - anything that can help us make > MDN better is much appreciated. > > So in terms of making the situation better in the App Center, I’m seeing > these things: > > * Provide a clear idea of what Firefox OS versions developers should be > developing for. We haven’t got this, and I agree we should say something > about it. We should advise 1.1, imo, or at least tell developers to provide > fallbacks for 1.1 if they are including >1.1 styling of script features, if > possible. > > * Provide more obvious ideas of what features work on Firefox OS. I’ve > added in Firefox OS support info to a lot of our API pages, but I think I > need to be more vigilant about this. Another idea I had was to include an > icon bar at the top of each page so that readers can quickly see what > browsers/devices support that feature, without having to go all the way to > the bottom of the page. I’ll write up some specs/mockups for this soon. > > * Provide more guidance for those starting out than just the single > quickstart. We are working on a series of dev recommendations, tutorials > and tools that should help a lot with this. More soon! > > Is there anything else I have missed? If you have more ideas about > improving Apps/Firefox OS content on MDN, please feel free to sent them to > me. > > Best regards, > > Chris Mills > Senior tech writer || Mozilla > developer.mozilla.org || MDN > [email protected] || @chrisdavidmills > > > > On 5 May 2014, at 13:23, Pablo Brasero Moreno <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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_compatibilityforthe > 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 > > -- Pablo Brasero Moreno [email protected] _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
