Related
I was recently thinking new web browsers like Google Chrome 6.0,Opera 10.60 and Safari 5 are supporting HTML5 and other new web standards and my question is XDA-Developers using those New Standards?.If NOT i think they should in order for a better and much faster experience on the site also for new additions to the site
WHAT DO YOU THINK???????
(feel free to comment on this post and say whatever you want about it concerning the topic)
BY THE WAY I LIKE THE NEW REDESIGN,GOOD JOB DEVELOPERS
(Vbulletin 4 has been RELEASED)
The forum is powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.5. I do not think XDA developers can do much.
As previous poster said they aren't actually coding the site. They are just running a forum application on their server. They can customize it, add in mods,and such. Now when Vbulletin changes then sure, but thats a long long long way away.
i think so to so v bulletin should change the codings on the forums
Ok I'll answer this one too. HTML5 is in no way ready for release. Its way too buggy and not able to keep up with flash. Ok I said it. Thats why all these companies are making iphone flash players rather then switching to HTML5.
What you mean HTML5 is no ready for release? HTML5 is a specification.
Yes but it is not ready for mass scale usage. Its too buggy right now and leaves to big of a void in between flash and HTML. ,, also I thought it was a language? hypertext markup language , but I guess its the same thing potatoe, pototoe.
How can a spec be buggy?
first of all max power Html5 is ready and its already being used by 100´s of sites including Youtube also Html5 is a new different type of coding It brings many new features xda could really use and Vbulletin should start a new version of the forum software with the new web standards
Features (API)of HTML 5:
The canvas element for immediate mode 2D drawing. See Canvas 2D API
Specification 1.0 specification [13]
Timed media playback
Offline storage database (offline web applications). See Web Storage [14]
Document editing
Drag-and-drop
Cross-document messaging[15]
Browser history management
MIME type and protocol handler registration.
Microdata
Geolocation
Local SQL Database
HTML 5 VIDEO
Ok lets see if I can answer some of these.
1st, hundreds of sites across the internet is not a bunch or even 00.000000000000000000001% of the web.
2nd HTML5 of youtube is a joke, look at the quality. Theres a reason you goto youtube and it takes you to the flash version.
3. Hulu just came out and said there is no possible way they could provide their service on HTML5, the technology just doesn't exist yet.
So while I know you guys are chomping at the bit for HTML5 to take over the world and slay the evil adobe monster, it ain't gonna happen. Because as HTML5 matures so does Flash.
Great idea, we should do a flash forum!
:S
no offense,Dont be so dumb in no way will HTML 5 overtake flash dont worry about that and the reason youtube takes you to the flash player videos is because not all the videos are uploaded with HTML 5 format.Adobe´s Flash is good but it wont be used as much by HTML 5 because Html 5 does not require as much space as flash and it does more than flash will ever do
dont forget WebM
job portal
As previous poster said they aren't actually coding the site. They are just running a forum application on their server. They can customize it, add in mods,and such. Now when Vbulletin changes then sure, but thats a long long long way away.
Mozilla has lost its way. Technically it's not even a non-profit any longer, and it no longer behaves like it. Capriciousness and indifference to developer concerns is rampant.
For me, the change in the nature of the file browser is the straw which broke the camel's back. The file name now spills uncontrollably over the page, disfiguring any layout which surrounds it. Just as it does in Google's browser.
The direction Google is forcing the web into is contrary to the original vision of it as designed by Tim Berners-Lee. In response to user ire, the Mozilla team again and again blames Google, alleging that Google's design is "ultracompetitive" and that they "have to catch up" to them. Yet if you read their blogs they make no secret that the new standards and design choices are being made in collaboration with Google (HTML 5 is apparently the brainchild of a pair hailing from Google and Mozilla, respectively... or at least that's what they want you to think).
For me, the burden that the file browser now imposes is something that's just not practical from an implementation standpoint. With this change, web browser form design no longer even competitive to XWindow. The whole thing seems like it was dreamed up by one of the jerks on a reality talent contest... and a takeover by one of those very jerks seems to be the most probable cause of this particular miscarriage of philosophy, just as happened at Microsoft with XBox One last month. But I'm not about to clamor for a figurehead's head: just as at MS, something is rotten at Mozilla. We need a new seed to sprout that can take us into the future. A seed that will respect the intelligence of the people who have to now placed their faith in Mozilla, only to be told by the organization they exalted that they aren't as smart as it. This new organization, if it is not to suffer the same fate which hangs over Mozilla, will do right what Mozilla heedlessly does wrong, including:
respect for user freedom and competence.
avoids placing undue burdens on the designer
avoids obfusticating its code with impenetrable, bug-ridden COMs.
is open source.
In short, it'll be friendly and it'll actually listen to people who aren't ready to fork over their whole lives to an endless reinvention of the wheel like we are seeing at Mozilla.
Free browsers are nice and all, but they just aren't working out. We're getting what we deserve for letting Google take everything over and letting Mozilla get by without relying exclusively on user donations. The result is a corrupted organization and now, a faulty product. I'm prepared to pay a little for a good browser that respects common sense design practicalities. What about the rest of you, will you sacrifice the price of a couple large pizzas for a decent web browser minus the drama?
I've done my bit to try to change Mozilla's downward trajectory. I went on their forums and their chats and told them, this stuff doesn't work. They're making things hard. Their response was that they didn't really give two cents for the opinion of anyone who wasn't down in the trenches with them writing code in their incredibly complicated wrapper context. Like you, I've got other priorities. There are people out there with more experience and, quite frankly, better math skill that can do this job and get a lot more out of it. I want to give them the chance to do just that. Tired of the betrayals, just want to download my browser updates and be done with it... is that too much to ask? I don't think it is, and I hope you don't, either.
I've never tried to write code for a browser before, never even researched it. I'd be happy to help, but I'd like to see a mock GUI first to see how clean of a browser you're shooting for. Mock one up?
t3hcurs3 said:
I've never tried to write code for a browser before, never even researched it. I'd be happy to help, but I'd like to see a mock GUI first to see how clean of a browser you're shooting for. Mock one up?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually I was looking around and it seems like there is this browser called NetSurf which may be doing everything right. There's no build for Windows or for mobile, which is an issue, but its libraries are in C which offers little room for obfustication a la C++. Should be portable to Java... I think if there was a windows build this browser could take off.
Although I don't really need Windows anymore. I'd just as well settle for a mobile version. There's also Amaya, but it has a reputation for poor ease of use and excessive minimalism. And there's Dillo which is stuck in a timewarp.
There is a question of where they're getting their funding from. However, they seem to be far enough along that if they did start to pull crap it would be easy enough to fork, and really I don't think the web needs much more technology beyond what it already has at this point. I need more information though. What do you think?
Sewrizer said:
This is the best advice I can give as a humble user, and the point stated above makes me believe that this is how things should be created from the beginning. A new browser has the advantage of being based on the present ideas, and since the devs have nothing to lose they can introduce off the wall features, original ideas which others didn't dare to add for fear of losing users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I agree with this. I asked Moz's JS engine people why they didn't program Firefox to use webworker technology to manage events, so as not to tie up the browser when waiting for file access, and they said it "wasn't in the spec" and "wasn't a priority". And when I requested that they program the canvas API to access multiple cores, they told me to take it up with W3C. Thinking like is not gonna move anybody forward.
I have no issues with Firefox's UI... it's its API which kills me.
EDIT: OK Netsurf is definitely not ready for prime time, but it certainly has potential. I think if it were combined with Mozilla's SpiderMonkey it would be able to handle Javascript alright... I don't really care it's slower than Chrome from the outset... could always be improved. Really dynamic recompilation is the state of the art. I like that it's written in C, and uses GTK and SDL. Gonna look into this...
Here's some evidence of how bad Mozilla has become.
Nevermind... due to new poster restrictions I can't post my links.
Hello,
I've been doing some research on the many, many different routes I can go with Android development, and I'm hoping someone might be able to help narrow down my choice. My experience is currently web related, PHP/HTML/CSS, with knowledge of intermediate Javascript, etc.
I'd like to create a very similar game to Football Manager, but less ambitious. For those that aren't aware, it's a simulation game where you're the manager of a soccer team.
My ambition is to keep it very simple, dumbed down. No need to watch the games, pretty much all text with simple graphics for some things.
My issue is, trying to find a place to start. There's literally a lot of different routes, and I'm overwhelmed. Do I use HTML5? Java? One of the programs like Unity, Construct? PhoneGap?
For my specific game, and idea, what would be your best suggestion on what to use?
Thanks in advance.
you can try CocoonJS. it's easy.
It's html5 fraemwork.
CocoonJS is a technology that helps HTML5 developers publish their web-based games and apps in the most important mobile and web stores with no code changes and with all the advantages of native development.
Using CocoonJS, a single code base is enough to publish a game or app natively on more than 10 stores. Best of all, with no installations thanks to our cloud-based platform.
HTML5 is finally ready for cross-platform app and game development!
Learn more: http://ludei.com
But now it's in open beta.
All free, but all Extension only for premium users.
Premium account granted for free, if you have nice idia/project.
The answer is "it depends"
A couple of questions...
1. Will it only be for Android? or are you also planning to push it to iPhone?
2. Will the interface be more like a app (eg. gmail, calendar, utility apps) or more like a game (immersive, completely different interface) ?
3. Will there be a lot of interaction? or mainly consuming information?
pyko said:
The answer is "it depends"
A couple of questions...
1. Will it only be for Android? or are you also planning to push it to iPhone?
2. Will the interface be more like a app (eg. gmail, calendar, utility apps) or more like a game (immersive, completely different interface) ?
3. Will there be a lot of interaction? or mainly consuming information?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Android to start, possibility of iPhone in the future.
2. Straight forward, more like an app, nothing too pretty, more statistical.
3. Mainly consuming information, lots of behind the scenes work.
In that case, I would say go for a mobile friendly web-based app, as opposed to a native app. So this would mean HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
Reasons are:
You want to eventually be on both Android and iPhone. Since you're app is more "app like" if you go native, you'll essentially have to write 2 separate apps to have good user experience (Android and iPhone have vastly different experience guidelines). WIth a mobile-friendly website, you'll satisfy both with one code base
You've already got experience in HTML/CSS/Javascript - definitely a big win!
Since your app will mainly be information consumption, it sounds suitable for a website.
When done correctly, a mobile-friendly website can still be a great experience to use
A couple of things to be aware of...
Don't try and imitate the native UI on the mobile-friendly website. It is a website, not a native app! Users are fine if it doesn't behave like a native app (afterall, they would've just reached your site via the browser). In fact, if you make the website behave sorta like a native app, it might confuse users more. Best direction is to have a good, solid ,easy to use and understand UI. (Be wary of the Uncanny Valley)
Unlike laptops/desktops, mobiles generally are less powerful, so you'll need/want to optimise performance. Make sure the website runs fast & smoothly (ie. optimise resource downloading, minimise/optimise javascript animations etc). Be aware that most phones have a 'click delay' (to detect swipes/drags etc) so you'll want to use something like fastclick to eliminate this.
Remember that on a mobile device your user will be using their fingers (and not a mouse) to click/interact with your website. So make sure tap targets are nice and large.
Finally .... test on a real device! Chrome dev tools etc to simulate phone screens is great for dev, but actually using your website on a mobile will reveal many design decisions that might need to change.
This might sound like a lot to think about, but I think given what you've said about your idea, in the long run, it will be more time efficient. (there is probably a equally long list of things to think about when developing a native app!)
Good luck with your idea
pyko said:
In that case, I would say go for a mobile friendly web-based app, as opposed to a native app. So this would mean HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
Reasons are:
You want to eventually be on both Android and iPhone. Since you're app is more "app like" if you go native, you'll essentially have to write 2 separate apps to have good user experience (Android and iPhone have vastly different experience guidelines). WIth a mobile-friendly website, you'll satisfy both with one code base
You've already got experience in HTML/CSS/Javascript - definitely a big win!
Since your app will mainly be information consumption, it sounds suitable for a website.
When done correctly, a mobile-friendly website can still be a great experience to use
A couple of things to be aware of...
Don't try and imitate the native UI on the mobile-friendly website. It is a website, not a native app! Users are fine if it doesn't behave like a native app (afterall, they would've just reached your site via the browser). In fact, if you make the website behave sorta like a native app, it might confuse users more. Best direction is to have a good, solid ,easy to use and understand UI. (Be wary of the Uncanny Valley)
Unlike laptops/desktops, mobiles generally are less powerful, so you'll need/want to optimise performance. Make sure the website runs fast & smoothly (ie. optimise resource downloading, minimise/optimise javascript animations etc). Be aware that most phones have a 'click delay' (to detect swipes/drags etc) so you'll want to use something like fastclick to eliminate this.
Remember that on a mobile device your user will be using their fingers (and not a mouse) to click/interact with your website. So make sure tap targets are nice and large.
Finally .... test on a real device! Chrome dev tools etc to simulate phone screens is great for dev, but actually using your website on a mobile will reveal many design decisions that might need to change.
This might sound like a lot to think about, but I think given what you've said about your idea, in the long run, it will be more time efficient. (there is probably a equally long list of things to think about when developing a native app!)
Good luck with your idea
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much for your help, I appreciate all the information. One last question on my end.
I'm assuming the development tools would be the same as a usual website (ie. In my case, Dreamweaver?). If you're familiar with Game Dev Tycoon, would a layout /similar style of interaction game b, e capable using only Dreamweaver, or is something else needed?
No worries, more than happy to help
I would actually suggest not using Dreamweaver as for the mobile website, you'll really want to be as lean and minimal as possible. From what I recall, Dreamweaver can add quite a bit of 'cruft' to your code.
I would suggest a standard text editor (recommend: http://www.sublimetext.com/) as that would allow you to have complete control over your code, what you include/exclude, what goes where etc. The mobile site will require that extra attention as you really want to make sure it runs smoothly on the mobile.
In terms of quick dev iteration (making sure the site looks correct) you can use the chrome developer tools (https://developers.google.com/chrome-developer-tools/) which allows you to fake the user agent/screen size etc on your browser. Though nothing beats occasional testing on a real device - just to make sure you're on the right track.
Had a look at Game Dev Tycoon and I would say for something as involved as that (lots of interaction, animations etc) it's better to go down the native route.
pyko said:
No worries, more than happy to help
I would actually suggest not using Dreamweaver as for the mobile website, you'll really want to be as lean and minimal as possible. From what I recall, Dreamweaver can add quite a bit of 'cruft' to your code.
I would suggest a standard text editor (recommend: http://www.sublimetext.com/) as that would allow you to have complete control over your code, what you include/exclude, what goes where etc. The mobile site will require that extra attention as you really want to make sure it runs smoothly on the mobile.
In terms of quick dev iteration (making sure the site looks correct) you can use the chrome developer tools (https://developers.google.com/chrome-developer-tools/) which allows you to fake the user agent/screen size etc on your browser. Though nothing beats occasional testing on a real device - just to make sure you're on the right track.
Had a look at Game Dev Tycoon and I would say for something as involved as that (lots of interaction, animations etc) it's better to go down the native route.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you again. I appreciate all your help.
People, please spare a moment.. It's going to help..
Over the years I have used, tried, tested and reviewed just about every browser in the play store.. Sadly, android browsers are mostly overhyped, very few even worthy of being there..
HERE'S THE DEAL
1. Most users (including myself) needs to have 3 or 4 browsers in their devices..
WHY? Because, browser X has something what browser Y doesn't AND, Y has something what X doesn't.. So people hopelessly end up junking up all of them wanting the best of everything.. This creates wastage of resources and bloating up devices but can't help it.. After all, no one wants to miss out on something important.. As if it's not possible to share or unify the major features..
2. Does developers expect everyone to have free hi-speed wifi access everytime?
Why does the already loaded pages and multiple tabs needs to reload/refresh without the user's consent everytime the browser is minimised for a few minutes without even even killing or exiting (no task killers here), wasting needless time and data making the browsing experience very undesirable.. This happens on most of the browsers barring opera mini..
What devs must take regard is that a vast majority of mobile users are on tight expensive 3G/4G data plans.. And this takes a big toll, doubling or even tripping up your monthly bill..
Is it an Android OOM or a caching problem?
Some even offers data compression and engines for economical surfing, which will make a negligible difference as compared to this problem.. Whatever this strange behaviour is, it's a big issue that needs to be looked into very soon, and this doesn't happen on a PC..
3. While, some browsers downloads a Web page instead of saving the already loaded page whereas some really popular BIG names doesn't even support saving a page for offline viewing which is such a crucial aspect of being a browser.. I hate to say this but it's such a shame!
Do you still need to concede precious data just to download the already loaded Web page for offline reading when Uc browser, opera mini, opera mobile can all easily save the already loaded page in an instant without eating any more data?
I believe, it's not all about staying ahead of the competition and thriving to be reputated as the ultimate best browser BUT it's more about focussing on the persisting flaws and offering the users the best experience along with the feature improvements..
See, what I mean is that it's pretty obvious that they already know more than anyone else about the above described problems but unless one of them steps up and do something about this NO BODY AMONG THE REST IS GOING TO CARE!
It's like a cat and mouse game, decades back, some television manufacturer implements remote control for the first time and solved a problem making life much better for us and suddenly the rest started doing the same to catch up BUT they all knew the technology was already there and anyone could have done it first with just a little more effort BUT they didn't care because nobody was complaining BUT, WE ONLY REALIZED HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE IT MADE AFTERWARDS..
I SAY, ANDROID HAS EVOLVED BIG TIME SO DOES THE BROWSERS NEEDS TO.
Sent from my GT-P3100 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Hey,
I'm a developer and I want to start with app development. No games, just productivity stuff. Without experience, I would tend to native apps, because you can use all api's, designs etc. I think cross platform frameworks is just a hype like java for web. HTML and CSS are the best choice for web and nobody is talking about java in web-dev. Now, I have a feeling that you're trying to use this technology in Apps because html5 and css3 a fancy. But this is just my opinion and maybe I'm wrong. As I mentioned, I do not have any experience in app-dev. Therefore, I want to ask you, because you have the experience.
Are cross platform frameworks a great choice to develop apps for iOS, Android and Windows 10 (Mobile)? Is it really time saving and do I have the same or similar possibilities? Or is it better to maintain three different platforms? Maybe the time effort isn't so much higher. I don't know. How high is it? Should I start with a cross platform framework and switch later to native apps, or is it better to start with native apps?
I hope you can share your experience with me. It is also great if you link something that reflects your opinion.
Thanks
neon
"nobody is talking about java in web-dev"
Not true Many pages and server side app are created in java. JEE, JSF etc. Problem is hosting for page. Hosting for PHP is cheaper and more popular. That is why PHP is more popular than Java in web-dev.
Anyway, in mobile platform, in my opion, better way is native apps. Cross platform frameworks are great, but only for some of the types application. Most applications can be made faster and look prettier if they are native. Many things is hard when you use crossplatform, and sometimes development takes longer. Much depends on type of application and requirements. Of course it's only my opinion. Many people think differently.
It depends. First of all it is important to know which API or librarys you want to use. If you have some intensive tasks or calculations you should go with native apps because they are often much faster then hybrid-apps written in JavaScript. If you don't have much intensive tasks and you have a completely new idea and want to make money with it you shoud go with hybrid-apps because it is a huge plus to have an App for Android AND iOS.
Thanks for you responses.
@Asmok78
You are right. PHP is more popular because it is cheaper.
Asmok78 wrote that most applications can be made faster and it depends an the application. spcialx wrote something equal. So, as an example, all my ideas are based on a client server architecture where users can sync there local data with a server to work collaborativ. As an example it could be an app for all three platform (iOS, Android and Windows 10(Mobile)). A user can manage a tasklist and share tasks with other users, or you have a project and one user can assign tasks to other users.
I guess it will be faster to get a first working app with a crossplatform framework. But I also guess, that in the long run it will be better to dev native apps. So why not start directly with native apps?
ne0n said:
[...]
I guess it will be faster to get a first working app with a crossplatform framework. But I also guess, that in the long run it will be better to dev native apps. So why not start directly with native apps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your assumption is completely right.
I'm working on a hybrid app right now. While it can be tempting, as soon as you get out of common features and patterns you can run into all sorts of problems and I found some quite hard to debug and solve. In the end I've busted all my deadlines. Performance are just OK for most uses, but still not comparable to native. All in all it depends on what you are trying to do, cross-platform apps might be ok for some use cases, but native apps are well worth the extra effort.
I think you should go native for apps. But not for games.
Sent from Tapatalk. Try LucidPod - lightweight podcast player.
Android NDK is there for performance reasons. If you plan to create something serious, then dedicated development cycles for each platform may be the obvious choice.
with web app, you can create app with nice and easy ui, can communicate with system api via plugin but sometime you need custom there control, and you need experience with native app , if it basic, you can do with only web app.
hybrid app is slower than native, only for small app.
Asmok78 said:
"nobody is talking about java in web-dev"
Not true Many pages and server side app are created in java. JEE, JSF etc. Problem is hosting for page. Hosting for PHP is cheaper and more popular. That is why PHP is more popular than Java in web-dev.
Anyway, in mobile platform, in my opion, better way is native apps. Cross platform frameworks are great, but only for some of the types application. Most applications can be made faster and look prettier if they are native. Many things is hard when you use crossplatform, and sometimes development takes longer. Much depends on type of application and requirements. Of course it's only my opinion. Many people think differently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, I'm a java web guy. Tomcat, Struts 2 and JSP for me (though I'm slowly switching to Spring instead of Struts). The sheer power of Java, the stuff you can do, vs PHP (disclaimer: I coded PHP for 10 years professionally and now hate it, especially with the advent of Wordpress and Drupal) is absolutely staggering. Add to that a tonne of amazing libraries one can just plug straight in and you get a really useful bit of kit. Sorry, off-topic.
So yeah native is best. I work on a timesheeting/expenses solution for big mobile telcos in the UK and we looked at some cross-platform solutions at first, with Xamarin getting a decent run out but in the end we concluded it just wouldn't do the job, and went native. The issue really was that you'd end up with an app that wasn't quite right on either platform, and had to really write some nasty hacky stuff to make anything that took advantage of the advantages or preferred style of a particular platform. It just wasn't worth the effort in the end.
With Unity3d you can build for like 20 platforms.
Cross-Platform vs Native | Development Tools
1. Native apps are usually developed to work on a single mobile platform by using the native programming language mainly used for user interactions.
2. Cross platform requires different platforms for development are used for PhoneGap, Titanium, and Xamarin by using HTML and JavaScript mainly used for iOS, windows, and Android.
"no one is discussing java in web-dev"
Not genuine Many pages and server side application are made in java. JEE, JSF and so on. Issue is facilitating for page. Facilitating for PHP is less expensive and more mainstream. That is the reason PHP is more well known than Java in web-dev.
Anyway, in portable stage, in my opion, better way is local applications. Cross stage systems are incredible, yet just for a portion of the sorts application. Most applications can be made quicker and look prettier on the off chance that they are local. Numerous things is hard when you utilize crossplatform, and infrequently improvement takes longer. Much relies on upon kind of utilization and necessities. Obviously it's lone my sentiment. Numerous individuals think in an unexpected way.
whats the end goal/how big is your buget?
for example: business apps, they're not that heavy on interactions/animations - you may be better off with cross platform as it will generally cost less to create it that way
if heavy on interactions/animations: native would be a better choice and may cost more because it may be developed for multiple platforms, which in turn would make it more expensive.
Hi,
If you ask me I will go with the cross platform if I'm building the app from scratch as it's easier to make any changes and most importantly saves a lot of time.