State of the web - HTML5
- Started
- Last post
- 26 Responses
- Hombre_Lobo
I've been trying to understand the current state of the web at the moment, but kinda struggling and was really hoping to get some insight from the pros.
Mostly in regards to Flash alternatives, like HTML5 and jQuery etc and how you go about cross platform solutions.
Often It seems like all this tech is trying to fill the boots of Flash.
But there seems to be a massive gap where Flash once was. Usually a technology gets superseded by a better one. But in this case Flash has just been wiped off the table, with no replacement.People look to HTML 5 but, from what i can tell HTML 5 is still so new and infantile with very little community support or information.
So there is like a big gap for rich interactive experiences, which Flash once filled. And also Flash is still more supported on desktop browsers than HTML5.
Most (pretty much all) of the rich interactive / animation stuff in HTML 5 either runs like complete crap on mobile devices or doesn't run at all.
So what the hell are people on about when they think HTML 5 is the savior of mobile browsing? Am i missing something? Obviously Flash doesn't work on apple mobile devices, and is no longer supported by adobe, so its a no go.
I even made this thread - http://www.qbn.com/topics/680597…
Which had a disappointing response, in line with my experience of mobile HTML5. I'm trying to understand the whole 'HTML5 is the future' stuff, but find it quite underwhelming.Say for example you want to create an interactive web banner. with some very basic interaction.
- you could make it in HTML 5 and it wont IE 7 (and might not work on IE 8 iirc), and it might not work on mobile due to bad performance.
- you could make it Flash and lose mobile viewers.I know you can make several options and put fall backs in place, but smaller clients wont want to pay for you to make the same thing x amount of times to suit different mediums. And of course the target audience (buzzword word bingo 10 points!) is hugely important in your choice.
There seems to be loads of stuff you can do with jQuery / javascript, which I think is more supported than HTML5. Why aren't people using that more for interaction and animation?
I'm interested in what you lot think about it. What choices you make in regards to the technologies and what best practices you do in your agency to meet the limitations of different mediums.
- Hombre_Lobo0
Good to see some interesting stuff in here -
http://www.qbn.com/topics/680616…
- spmitch0
you have to ask yourself why do we continue to support outdated technologies (IE)
- Excellent point.
Forced updates for browsers are the future. Sadly some clients want ie 7+8 support.Hombre_Lobo - Because a lot of people use it? IE isnt outdated. Its not netscape.CygnusZero4
- Excellent point.
- mikotondria30
CSS3 is coming on in leaps and bounds at the moment, you'll be delighted at the uptake rate of new features and the low cost of some awesome old school flash-like fx, albeit with a slightly more obtuse way to implement them that jQuery or Canvas scripting.
http://lea.verou.me/ is a good jumping off point.
In terms of what works on what platform and browser, there's a lot to be said for cunningly developing so that there's meaningful degradation.
- zarkonite0
This will help you: http://caniuse.com/
Also, keep in mind that mobile access is becoming the dominant way in which people interact with the web and that tablets will outsell desktops this year.
You should take a look at this guy: http://www.lukew.com/ff/ - there are screen sizes from 3.5" all the way to 27" and you can even start counting smart TVs (seriously, there's a phone at 3.5, 4.2, 4.5, 6, 7.3 and 8 and probably more I don't know about)... you should design around your content and create an engaging experience for your USERS rather than focus on the features of your interface.
20% of all americans don't have access to the Internet at all. 35% of people in the US don’t have Internet access at home. 59% of Americans who make less than $30,000 (low-income) have no Internet access at home. 88% of Americans without a high school diploma don’t have Internet access at home. At the same time, 88% of people have a mobile phone. The number of people that use their phone to access the Internet went from 31% (2009) to 55% (2012)... design for reach rather than rich media very few people have access to.
You need to think about the users and what you're trying to communicate, and educate your clients that asking for "comps" is just a waste of their money, there are no screens left to design for.
- <<BabySnakes
- holy shit that site is epic!
why did i not know this already!!
Hombre_Lobo
- zarkonite0
A good read about content: http://www.abookapart.com/produc…
- ukit20
"There seems to be loads of stuff you can do with jQuery / javascript, which I think is more supported than HTML5. Why aren't people using that more for interaction and animation?"
You might be getting a little mixed up over what is HTML5 vs JavaScript. Remember HTML5 is just the new version of HTML (along with CSS3, new version of CSS). Any site with an HTML5 doctype in the head of the document is considered HTML5 - it doesn't matter if it's a completely static page with only text.
Beyond that, HTML5 consists of a slightly different way of writing HTML (new tags and page structure) along with a set of APIs that enable special features. But in order to make these features work, or implement any kind of animation and interactivity you need to write JavaScript. So they are not separate things to choose between but two technologies used together.
- Hombre_Lobo0
^thanks for that. I understand how they differ.
My concern is that if HTML5 is less supported than javascript + jQuery, why isn't the latter used instead for animation and interaction on mobile devices? I'm not favoring one over the other, just curious.
- only that the technologies you would use to animate (css3/ canvas/ svg etc.) are synonymous with html5...kingsteven
- ie. the tags will not validate/ may not render correctly across browsers if the doctype is html4 - that is all.kingsteven
- Hombre_Lobo0
@zarkonite
Thanks for that epic site!!
"you should design around your content and create an engaging experience for your USERS rather than focus on the features of your interface."
Yeh that makes sense, the content should inform the desired output/tech with users in mind.And yeh i agree that the future is mobile, but im curious what tech and fall back processes people currently use to create rich interactive and animation on mobiles, whilst being mindful of limitations.
And their general thoughts on the subject.
- boobs0
Mobile websites are really, really limited.
1) Internet service on them is really slow. It's like being back on dial-up. Slow dial-up. If you're used to using a desktop with a broadband connection, mobile internet seems like a totally different, vastly inferior beast. Going around with my iPhone, and looking at even very prominent company's websites on mobile is painfully slow. Even the content for that little tiny screen takes A WHILE to load.
2) A lot of people use their data plans on mobile devices for personal transmissions, like photos and videos, and steer clear of the internet. Because they pay for data by the byte, unlike desktop users who are usually unlimited, mobile users are more choosy about what they do.
3) Many companies service their mobile clientele with a specific, frequently free, app. For instance, CNN, NYTimes, ESPN, and many large retailers, etc. I doubt that the average mobile user does much actual web-surfing from their phone. Even if that's their only connection. I know for me (not that I'm totally typical...), when I'm using my phone, I'm on the Twitter app, the Facebook app, the NYTimes app, the Netflix app, the YouTube app, Map app, Golf Channel app, Kindle app. I do almost nothing with the wee Safari app.
3) Many mobile sites can just be replaced with a button to get the app. On many mobile sites, the most prominent thing on the mobile home page is the link to get the app.
4) There are a few places that I still use the browser on my phone. To check information at the library, to see if I a book I ordered came in, and I should pick it up. And to check my bank balance. In both cases, checking on the phone is a pain in the ass compared to doing it from a desktop.
5) I do almost no web searches from my phone. When I do search, it's in the maps app for a specific thing, like the nearest decent restaurant, or gas station. In other words, I'm not even going on the web to do the vast majority of my searches.
6) To an extent, the premise of commercial sites on the web, at least for small businesses, is that someone may stumble across your site while surfing the web, or searching, and then learn about your business, and decide to become a customer. Or, they hear of your business, and then check you out online, before committing to coming to the store, or calling you up. I have a hard time imagining that happens very much on mobile devices.
7) How often have you found new cool websites while surfing the web on your phone? How often have you looked up a new business while surfing the web on a phone? Now, granted, almost all of us are using desktops with broadband, and that's where we do most of our surfing.
8) I've got to imagine that people using the internet, strictly from their mobile phones, are using it vastly differently than people who view the net from a desktop. I imagine they try to avoid using the browser as much as possible, I bet they use dedicated apps just as often as they can, and that there isn't much "discovery" on mobile as there is on desktop.
- By mobile I mean phones. Tablets are a different deal.boobs
- Any evidence beyond your personal experience to back this up?hereswhatidid
- http://news.cnet.com…boobs
- That doesn't address any of the points you made beyond except that tablets are gaining popularity.hereswhatidid
- Where is the data saying people "steer clear of the internet" on their mobile?hereswhatidid
- animatedgif0
I noticed you complain that Flash has been wiped off the table without a drop in replacement, then you criticise HTML for being unable to do things that Flash can't even do (HTML 5 either runs like complete crap on mobile devices or doesn't run at all)
- Flash wiped out by Steve Jobs banning it from iPhone and iPad. Still works. But clients don't want it.boobs
- Yes, but it still "runs like complete crap on mobile." or "runs as much slower than on desktop as flash"kingsteven
- I only have the apple devices, so I don't really know how crappy it runs on other stuff.boobs
- not true, Blackberry 10 runs Flash perfectly and fast - it's more to do with ios battery lifespot13
- Spot13, you do realise processors get faster over time...animatedgif
- instrmntl0
The State Of The Web Is Good!
- but not really.instrmntl
- lol! the web is amazing, just lacking a tool that made things a lot easier at the mo.Hombre_Lobo
- GeorgesIV0
Steve Jobs!
- SteveJobs0
I think flash offered as an open technology to the WC3 should be adopted by the WC3 as a standard for all browsers. NOT as a plugin technology as it currently exists, but a set of api's and an honest extension to the current scripting tech all built in by the browser creators.
Adoption would be a tough sell, but the functions of this new 'flash' engine would be native as they'd call directly to system processes such as gdi and quartz, or even opengl for hardware acceleration (meaning Apple would no longer be able to make the complaint about the current runtime slowing down their mobile gadgets).
I think this would solve a lot of problems and provide a solid platform for exceptional creative development once again as it did back in the day.
- That would be great.
it surprise me how apple don't like plug ins, yet quicktime needs a plug in to run...Hombre_Lobo
- That would be great.
- Hombre_Lobo0
@animatedgif
I dont understand. Are you saying flash runs bad on mobile devices? if so, that's incorrect.Flash runs fine on mobile devices. On my 3 year old (galaxy s1) it could run flash sites, and that was a single core.
Just youtube flash sites android and see for yourself.
I actually used to use this site -
http://www.unrealtournament.com/…
as a benchmark to see how well android devices could deal with Flash content. And my crappy phone ran it fine.- < this - Blackberry 10 runs Flash equally well alsospot13
- No one wants to support the Flash plugin when they have the same functionality built inPupsipu
- Also they don't want to support any plugins, too lazy.Pupsipu
- it's not that it runs bad... it runs as bad.kingsteven
- @pupsipu what? html5 has flash functionality built in as flash? it doesnt, and it runs like ass on mobile...Hombre_Lobo
- jtb260
@boobs
Your essentially asserting that people trend towards native mobile apps over mobile browser experiences. I don't think that the data bears out your argument. Two points:
1. In the past year nearly all the analytics I have seen for our clients has indicated that one third to half of traffic is from mobile devices. (Determined by browser and view port stats).
2. If people are opting for a native app over a mobile site than it's only because the browser experience is so poor. There are other factors like convenience of access which I agree would contribute to this.
Overall I don't believe that the cause is related to technology or bandwidth. The cause is obtuse clients, lazy design and inefficient development. I think many clients aren't willing to make affordances for a truly mobile first approach to design. Designers and developers are struggling to adopt this as a best practice.
Dedicated mobile sites and many responsive sites strip away content and functionality as the viewports diminish in size. While native apps are designed to support more complex functionality and rich content. If the mobile sites were design from the mobile experience first I think this would be less and less the case. Simplicity by reduction is a lazy way to solve the problem of delivering information on a small screen.
The presentation layer is still where many designers are focusing their attention, devoting a lot of time to lush photoshop comps of a home page, rather than prototyping more complex functionality for mobile. Essentially the work it takes to create a site that delivers in the modern web environment has doubled or tripled while clients expectations on the amount of time that should take has remained the same.
Also, jquery is on it's way out. Angular seems to be the new hotness.
- +1,000 for Angular.jsCrack_Junkie
- not heard much of angular js, ill check it out, thanks.Hombre_Lobo
- boobs0
I think this article backs up what I said above. Phones account for about 7% of website traffic these days. But phones generate about 70% fewer pageviews than do tablets. I think this is because the web experience on phones is so lousy. Of course, on tablets the web is great--the real strong suit of tablets is web surfing.
- boobs0
I think a lot of the problem with the web on phones does have to do with bandwidth. And the fact that such a tiny amount of information shows on the screen, so there's either a lot of scrolling, or a lot of page calls--compared to tablets or desktops.
If you were sitting at your computer, would you ever in a million years take out your phone to look for something on the web? Of course not.
Experiencing the web on a phone is a bit like trying to eat a big bowl of ice cream with a cocaine spoon. It is possible, but it's a hassle, it's not as enjoyable, and it takes much longer.
If the web on phones had been great, tablets would never have become popular.
- boobs0
Just take a look at Google on a phone. Their site, I think, is quite well-optimised for phones. It's just text after all.
But, you know, you look at their site on a phone and you get something like 2% of the information you get on a tablet screen.
Relatively speaking, it's harder to enter search terms. Because phones are harder to type on than on proper computers. When you do search, you get a small fraction of the information, and to look at more takes more effort and more hassle than on a laptop or tablet.
So, even with a site like google, which is nearly ideal for phone use, the experience is shitty.
- Sorry to go on and on.boobs
- dont be sorry dude, you're making your point :)Hombre_Lobo
- Maaku0
Eating a big bowl of ice cream with a cocaine spoon (I assume it's a small one) is very enjoyable. You get to taste, enjoy and appreciate the flavors.