- From: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 19:03:39 +0300
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Ben Johnson <Ben.Johnson@citrix.com>, "Michael\[tm\] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Konstantin Welke <Konstantin.Welke@citrix.com>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "bzbarsky@MIT.EDU" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Konstantin Welke > <Konstantin.Welke@citrix.com> wrote: > > How we use it: > > * We try to launch our native application using a custom URI scheme > > * If successful, we show some “success” UI > > * If no handler installed, the user gets a download > > * If we don’t get a callback (= user declined or undecided), the user can > > choose between trying again and downloading the application. > > This does not seem particularly compelling. I'd rather figure out why > there needs to be a native application in the first place. > As a person working for a company with a big mobile game catalogue, I'd say this is a reality and happening already, and unfortunately I've seen this currently done in some pretty gross, uninteroperable and user-hostile ways and would love to see those go away. If we specify the way this should be done, this will also let the UA be more aware of what the web app is trying to do, so for people like me who hate websites trying to open an app, the UA could have an option to always reject these attempts. I think the overall compelling thing here is providing a good UX for something that may or may not be a good thing, but is happening already, with poor UX. - Jussi
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 16:04:24 UTC