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.
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.
Cheers,
Mitchell
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 : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
