Re: Web/Native: gap analysis

Hi Dom,   

On Monday, October 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Hi Marcos,
>  
> Le lundi 14 octobre 2013 à 12:01 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
>  
> > I think it's great that you've gone to such length to identify the
> > issues in the platform. However, as it's evident from the breadth of
> > the problems you've identified, there is a ton of research to be done…
> > there are probably a couple of PhDs worth. This is a problem for the
> > IG, as we simply don't have the expertise in the group to try to
> > address every gap identified in the document. Other problems are
> > simply outside the scope of a standardization body (anything UX
> > related). There is a high risk of failure by trying to address every
> > single gap - it will simply take too long and it's just too dynamic a
> > space.  
>  
>  
> To be clear, it's never been my goal that we would address all the gaps
> at once; and not all the gaps are to be addressed by a standardization
> body for sure either.

Ok.   
> The goal of taking the wide-picture approach is to make it more likely
> that when we pick our priorities, we do so with a clearer view; both in
> terms of what would have the most impact, but also ensuring that closing
> the said gap won't also affect badly another piece where the Web is
> leading.


The question is: do we really not know what the priorities are of the stuff we need to fix? I think we all pretty much do, so let's just get on with it.  
  
> I certainly agree that at any time, the IG should focus its efforts in
> just a few of these items.


My worry was that we would spend too long as a group fleshing out those documents instead of tackling the high priority stuff that is broken. So, I think the framework/docs you have put together serve a really useful function in giving the overall picture (which other folks can take up and run with). But would like us to get moving on trying to fix stuff (and start by picking what we are going to fix first).   
  
> > Thus, I would like to propose that we try to fix the following three things:
> >  
> > 1. Offline - there is a real risk that Service Workers will not be
> > good enough unless we get it in front of the right people early
> > enough.
>  
>  
>  
> I strongly agree this should in our top priorities.
>  
> > 2. Bookmarking - we need to make sure that the bits are in place so
> > users can "install" web sites.  
>  
>  
>  
> I probably wouldn't call it bookmarking, but I agree that deeper
> integration of Web apps in the launcher real estate is critical as well.


I use the term bookmarking deliberately, as talking about "installing" leads people to get the wrong idea (technically). It also prevents the scope from blowing up into lifecycle discussions or people thinking that this has some relationship to a "manifest".
  
> > 3. Permissions - without a permissioning model for the Web, we can't
> > enable new device capabilities.  
>  
>  
>  
> Well, there is a permissioning model, but it's hard to scale and is
> pretty leaky; I would love if we can indeed help in this field.
>  

That would be good… Do you have an alternative set of priorities (at least for 2 and 3)?  

--  
Marcos Caceres

Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 19:26:08 UTC