Re: Web/Native: gap analysis

I spent some quality time reading these documents this morning and think that fellow WebMobsters will find the time as rewarding as I did.

While I let my thoughts brew further, some immediate reactions:

- Focus on the user is something very much to be welcomed. Identifying and distinguishing direct users of the technology - in the form of people who wish to build products and services - and indirect users - the targets of the first set is extremely important. I wonder if we should explicitly call out a third constituency, which is manufacturers and browser vendors. As the key enablers, identifying their concerns would be useful, in my view.

- It's probably worth noting that some of the concerns are in tension with each other. I'm particularly thinking of a reasonable desire to integrate more closely with the look and feel of a particular target delivery context (device) which would appear to be in tension with an equally sensible desire to provide a continuous, easy to navigate experience of the same product or service across platforms from different providers. 

- Needless to say, perhaps, I think that some aspects can be called out with more emphasis. Here I'm particularly thinking of best practice concerns relating to product development, especially reaching minimum viable product (MVP) and measuring use and iterating the product in a continuous feedback cycle. The Web has plenty of advantages here, and is particularly suitable for those who can go as far as doing A/B comparisons.

- I wonder if we can emphasise areas in which the Web could have a distinct advantage. Resumption from the point the user last left off (resumption of task context) is noted as something that Web apps are possibly lacking. Transfer of the task context between delivery contexts is an area that the Web could explore as being something that is a unique and important value.

- Also, needless to say, I guess, one can argue the exact conclusions under some headings. For example, I'm not clear that there are lots of effective Web development IDEs. To say that an IDE is effective, I think a clearer framework for evaluating the features offered against some kind of idea of what Web development current best practice consists of. It's my impression that there's a substantial body of Web developers who eschew IDEs in favour of top end text editors (Sublime Text, for example). From a designer rather than a developer perspective (ignoring for a moment any questions about the changing distinction between these roles) I'm not aware of a wide variety of tools in this area. In any case, tooling is a very important area. I'd go as far as to say that the underlying standards would ideally be developed with tooling in mind ...

Excellent job Dom, hard to do!

Jo



On 4 Oct 2013, at 10:52, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I introduced the effort that I led earlier this year on "closing the gap
> with native" a couple of weeks ago:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-mobile/2013Sep/0021.html
> 
> I mentioned then a gap analysis document that I was aiming to submit to
> the group; I've finally found the time to put it in a shape that I hope
> makes it at least somewhat digestible for the group to review.
> 
> The documents have been put in our github repository:
> https://github.com/w3c-webmob/gap-analysis
> 
> I have split my analysis effort around 2 axis: how web apps fare from
> the end-user perspective vs how they fare from the perspective of the
> app provider.
> 
> For the end user perspective, the analysis starts with highlighting the
> tasks that a user will be faced with when using an app (no matter how it
> was developed):
> http://w3c-webmob.github.io/gap-analysis/ux-comparison-framework.html
> 
> It then attempts rate how well Web apps fare at making these tasks a
> good UX:
> http://w3c-webmob.github.io/gap-analysis/ux-webapps.html
> 
> And finally it sketches possible actions to make Web apps fare better:
> http://w3c-webmob.github.io/gap-analysis/ux-actions.html
> 
> Likewise, for the provider perspective, it starts with identifying the
> various costs and sought benefits for an app provider (no matter the
> development approach chosen):
> http://w3c-webmob.github.io/gap-analysis/provider-comparison-framework.html
> 
> It then attempts to rate how Web apps fare in reducing the costs and
> augmenting the benefits:
> http://w3c-webmob.github.io/gap-analysis/provider-webapps.html
> 
> And finally, it sketches possible actions to make Web apps fare better
> in that regard:
> http://w3c-webmob.github.io/gap-analysis/provider-actions.html
> 
> I realize this is a lot of material, and some of it remains sketchy; I
> have already highlighted known issues in the document, but I'm sure a
> proper review of these documents will raise quite a few more.
> 
> As always, I'm very interested in getting feedback on whether the group
> this approach at analyzing the gap between Web and native can be
> productive, and if so, working with others on furthering it (esp. in
> terms of writing up action plans).
> 
> Dom
> 
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 5 October 2013 11:28:23 UTC