Re: Summary of discussions so far

Hi Scott,  


On Thursday, 28 March 2013 at 23:29, Scott Jenson wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org (mailto:dom@w3.org)> wrote:
> >  
> > Web apps user experience
> > ------------------------
> > Most users currently have different mental models for Web sites and
> > mobile apps, and some of these differences are also currently very
> > strongly reinforced by the underlying operating systems.
> >  
> > Making it possible for a Web app to run more like a mobile app would
> > help make Web apps easier to integrate in the user workflow (e.g. app
> > switching), but this comes as a trade off with some other aspects that
> > users appreciate in Web apps (shared logins, browseability, easy to
> > discard, etc.). The Sysapps runtime spec dives into some of these
> > considerations.
> >  
> > Here again, it's not clear yet what W3C can do help; it was suggested
> > that documenting the ideal "Web app UX" would be useful; the need for an
> > interoperable identity system à la BrowserID/Personna was also
> > highlighted as a possible way to reduce the friction that emerge from
> > isolating a Web app from the browser; and that a Web-Intents-like
> > ecosystem in general would help make Web apps flow better one with
> > another.
>  
>  
> This indeed is a difficult issue. I expect it will be filled with strong emotions. My point is that, sometimes, you just want a focused app like experience. No web, no links, no back: just a simple app. This really is from the users point of view not the DOMs: if we really want to 'catch up' then *acting* like an app needs to be part of discussion. Much like we have links with target=_blank, I'd like to consider something in the header/manifest that marks the page as an app, that marks it to have new behaviors outside of the classic browser.
I'd also like to see this marker, but not that it be tied to some particular behaviour/presentational experience: That is independent of an application being marked as "installable", IMHO. Though the manifest could then indicate how the developer would like the application to be run (e.g., fullscreen, and locked in landscape mode for a game).   
> This keeps everything 'the web' by default but allows for this new experience on demand. Things to consider would be:  
> 1) App level window navigation (i.e. it is seen as it's own app outside of the browser)
> 2) Minimal chrome so app goes full screen
> 3) Possible tie ins to the Network optimizations so background data can be triggered

Not sure what you mean here?    
> 4) Access to notifications, etc.

How would these differ from "Web Notifications"? http://www.w3.org/TR/notifications/  
>  
> I expect there will be strong reactions to this approach and there are clearly edge cases (like what happens if you *do* click on a link) that need further discussion. I will also completely admit that I have little API/standards experience and some of my suggestions may have deeply flawed assumptions that just won't work. If so, I'm happy to discuss better/safer alternatives.  
>  
> My basic point is that we are sticking our head in the sand if we want to 'be more like apps' but then insist on acting like a scrolling document window festooned with a 'command line' (URL bar) at the top of every page. We can't have it both ways.  
>  

I don't think it's one or the other (app or web). Various aspects of each should be controllable to afford developers with the ability to provide users with the best experience possible.

Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 15:04:24 UTC