HI there, I have started the improvement work, to try to improve things.
I have: * Added some information here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Quickstart#Firefox_OS * And here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox_OS/Introduction#Developing_apps_for_Firefox_OS * I’ve added notes to the app center reference; see the top of https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Reference … * … and the bottom of https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Reference/Layout_and_structure * I’ve also added Firefox OS support information to a lot of the reference support tables, for example - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/CSS/Flexible_boxes#Browser_compatibility - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAPI/Using_geolocation#Browser_compatibility * I have also included supported version numbers in the API permissions table: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Apps/Build/App_permissions I will also follow up soon with a mail about my idea for quicker, at a reference browser support info at the top of support pages. Let me know what else you think needs to be done ;-) Chris Mills Senior tech writer || Mozilla developer.mozilla.org || MDN [email protected] || @chrisdavidmills On 13 May 2014, at 15:37, Pablo Brasero Moreno <[email protected]> wrote: > 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_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 > > > > > -- > Pablo Brasero Moreno > [email protected] _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
