Notices

Originally Posted by Milhouse

I totally agree, although to be honest if a web site has a feed - RSS or whatever - then it's app just becomes a consumer of that feed and represents the information in an (arguably) easier to access format in which case maintaining that feed shouldn't add much complexity or overhead, certainly it should not for a site like the BBC.

Whether we think apps (that replace web sites) have a place on Nokia devices or not is a moot point - Nokia needs them if it's going to avoid becoming the next Palm Inc.

Originally Posted by ysss

I think most benefits from apps can be gained by using html5 (batched downloads, offline caching, more elaborate content/formatting, possibility of tighter control, etc...)

Originally Posted by attila77

I believe that to be a fallacy in this context as HTML5 will solve none of the fundamental problems. For example iPhone people often say HTML5 but they mean 'iPad/iPhone version'. While it will make a few things easier, the basic problem, the client-independent content distribution remains the same, you would still have to have a 'desktop HTML5 site', an 'iPhone HTML5 site', a 'MeeGo HTML5 site', etc.

Originally Posted by ysss

I don't understand the part about 'meego html5 site'. Why would it need to be compartmentalized by platform?

As for different form factors, I think there are real merits for that.

Originally Posted by flareup

the iphone has a browser, and most sites have mobile versions, or are more and more being designed with these in mind (a case of point being the recent disasterous relaunch of the bbc news site itself). So what exactly does an 'app' do in these cases?

if this is so, why can't we (900/810/800) users access these sites/streams/whatever that the 'app' is accessing?

Originally Posted by attila77

Because there is no guarantee that an iPhone-oriented HTML5 site will render equally well on MeeGo (note that under MeeGo I don't necessarily mean just handhelds). Add to this the dance around Flash, WebM/H264 and it's Internet Explorer all over again.

Certainly, but it's a step back. It has been a long and arduous fight (and not even completely over) to get the web to be resolution/aspect/DPI independent. Instead of truly addressing the problem of new form factors, we are simply discarding what has been learned with the web and going back to square 1, brute forcing the problem with specialized versions - a path that cannot be pushed on the long term.

Originally Posted by ysss

If that's the case, then it's definitely a step back. I don't know why you'd make that assumptions though.

Force feeding desktop websites (without modifications for handheld friendliness) for sub 4" screen consumption is an ergonomic abhorrence.

Originally Posted by attila77

Experience ? I already see this on current web applications - on more serious (i.e. not just a list of pictures/articles) people tend to pixel-push. And since the resolutions don't match, and the HTML5 compliance levels/compatibility of various browsers are bound to be different especially in the early stages of adoption, no way is it going to look okay.

Certainly. BUT. What's preventing website authors doing it NOW ? You can already serve up completely different/adjusted sites with current technologies, and yet, people don't do that, it's more important to fit in the paradigm of the host OS than to adhere to standards - which (while not apparent at first) *wrong* - imagine for example that in Windows you would have to doubleclick URLs to open them or that the site's CSS would get completely overridden by the OS' theme. It's a step back because you bring in OS/app dependency the web fought so hard to get rid of.