State of the web - HTML5
- Started
- Last post
- 26 Responses
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- fyoucher10
Re: boobs
iphone user: I don't use iOS 'apps' really. I'm at a desk most of the day and use the desktop then. Only use another device (iPhone/iPad) when I'm NOT at my desk (typically when I'm in bed). I actually surf the web MORE on my phone than my ipad, not anywhere near my desktop usage though. You mentioned people probably don't use their phone to surf the web. Me and my wife actually do the exact opposite. Perhaps the typical web-user actually does use their phone to surf. Actually, now that I have a MBP laptop freed up, I'm not using my iPad at all. My laptop is faster, sits up by itself (unlike an iPad) and has a bigger screen (for when I like to watch TV online). My phone is small, with me all the time, and either runs off of WiFi or my grandfathered unlimited AT&T plan. It's easy to pick up, put somewhere (or drop under the sheets) when I'm done, etc. It's convenient and that's why I surf with it a lot. Websites do suck when they're that small but I've learned to deal with it. It's not that bad of an experience IMO. I actually dislike mobile versions of websites, simply because it's either more clicks to get to what I want, or it's missing half the features that the full-on site has. I also don't like how I pass a link from my iphone to view on my desktop the next day, and then has a massive pixelated mobile version of the page to look at on my desktop, or I have to switch to the full version and search for what I was looking for on my phone. So I'm not a big fan of mobile versions of sites I guess.Personally, I don't think tablets will be here for that much longer or get as popular as folks think they may. Laptops are getting lighter, smaller, and faster. I don't want to have to hold a tablet or bring along a stand for it to be able to prop itself up. Tablets are cool and all, but that's because they're a new gadget. But that's just my opinion. Only time will tell I guess.
- fadein110
Flash is dead - deal with it - let it go.
HTML5/CSS/Javascript - that is all.
Learn it and let the SWF go... PLEASE.- why? conformity doesn't solve anyone's problems (except for a few corporate entities, possibly)SteveJobs
- i'm actually indifferent as i don't really do as much hands-on web development, but the principal matters to me.SteveJobs
- Conformity (when it comes to the web) solves most problems - prob best to stay pout of this one youngling.fadein11
- formed0
Flash is back??!?! Woohoo!!
- Pupsipu0
Didn't Android drop support for Flash plugin in browsers? Or Adobe gave up on it?
So wether Flash runs well or not, no one wants to spend the effort to support it. The effort would be better spent elsewhere.
- Adobe stopped development on a mobile Flash platform. Yeah, they gave up, basically.monospaced
- But it's alive and well on the desktop, and I see it making a comeback when mobile devices are mroe robustmonospaced
- mono don't be such fan boy tool bag. Adobe supported it for some time. until they realize that peopleHombre_Lobo
- care more about owning apple products than flash. Apples market share beat adobe.Hombre_Lobo
- BabySnakes0
Your web site/web application needs to work cross browser; cross device; cross input methods. It needs to respond to the user and not the designs' preferred method of browsing.
- boobs0
I don't think you can reach every single user out there. Because that would mean sites should just be plain text, with no Javascript or images. Because people can turn off Javascript and images.
I think what people need to look at, and decide, is how much effort to put into reaching the last 4 or 5 percent of users out there who are on poor connections, with out-of-date browsers.
Because it can take an enormous amount of effort to reach those last few users. Communication is something of a two-way street. And if someone out there is still on an 386 computer running Explorer 2.0, or whatever, and just using a 14kbaud connection, they've indicated that they don't really want to participate in communication.
- 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.