W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-mobile@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Initial research into installable web apps

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:27:50 +0000
To: Ernesto Jiménez <erjica@gmail.com>
Cc: public-web-mobile@w3.org
Message-ID: <A26A96E345374291B2E7F1FEB6723C60@marcosc.com>

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Ernesto Jiménez wrote:

> I would be happy to help you with the research.

> I did a quick & dirty extraction from the webdevdata.org (http://webdevdata.org) to have a go at it. Just extracted the top meta header names in order to see how popular are the app-specific ones such as application-name or apple-mobile-web-app-capable. Given that the viewport tag seems to be extended, I also extracted the top properties in viewport.
> https://gist.github.com/ernesto-jimenez/7390115
> It has been quick, so numbers are not accurate.

This is great, but yeah… I’m getting different results on the same data set (you are using the Oct 30 set, right?). For apple-mobile-web-app-capable, I get 1163 sites. Results are here:

Searches I’m doing are just grepping:

find ./ -name "*ml.txt" | xargs grep -l  "apple-mobile-web-app-capable”

What method are you using to get your results? BTW, have you seen the following?  
“the .csv files with tag usage and attribute usage”:

Really useful!  

> I'm happy to help with the draft, but I'm not doing a pull request yet. I should probably fix my W3C account first, since it's still linked to my previous company. I did send an application to join the group as invited expert, in case I can help out.

That would be awesome if you could. My idea is to now take a sample of about ~250 sites (for a confidence of 95% given the dataset size) and see if they are using the tag “properly”. That is, and I strongly suspect, that very few sites that claim to be “installable” actually function as installable web apps.  

I would really need help with this. I would like to split this task amongst 2-5 people, each of us looking at if these sites actually work as applications once installed. We would need to come up with some simple criteria for that… it’s pretty self evident, but with some caveats. For example:

1. forecast.io - yes, works as application, but it’s not useable as a Website on the iPhone!   
2. variety.com - only “installed" page “works”, but clicking on *any link* (even same domain) breaks the “installed app” illusion.
3. squawka.com - declares to be capable, but presents the Desktop site.  


Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 20:28:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:59:28 UTC