Related
Hey all,
i hope some one can give a hint for following problem:
I am working on a project that aims to extend the browser authentication in android.
Following use case can hopefully explain the task:
- User starts android browser and want to use "http://myservice.com"
- Myservice sends 401 Unathorized (with realm="myservice")
- (Normaly) A browser dialog asks user for his/her credentials
My vision is to change step 3. I want the native browser to call an app (f.e. myauthentication app) that gets (generate) the credentails for the user and sends them to the browser.
I found the method in the android browser sources that does display the authentication dialog. (BrowserActivity.java->showHttpAuthntication()).
I don't know how to call "myauthentication app" and get the result back to browser (dialog). My try via intent failed, because intent are asynchronously and as result i lose the browser focus. I am not sure if i am on the right way. Maybe it is better to implement the authentication in WebKit Framework. Or maybe use the android AccountManager.
I really hope some one can help me with some new ideas.
Best regards and thanks you very much for reading
Moppi
So I have noticed that Google recently updated the mobile youtube version of their site and it is fully html5 capable like an app inside the browser...
the question is why does the html5 mobile version of gmail does not load up in the IE9 on Windows Phone Mango...when its fully capable of handling HTML5 ???
going to the mobile version simply loads up the generic mobile UI version of the site....any help ???
backlashsid said:
the question is why does the html5 mobile version of gmail does not load up in the IE9 on Windows Phone Mango...when its fully capable of handling HTML5 ???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's no where near "fully capable"..
Go here on your WP7 browser for proof: http://html5test.com
See how IE9 stacks up compared to other phone browsers (the results are poor): http://html5test.com/results-mobile.html.
It is possible that HTML5 Gmail site is using a feature that is not supported. It's also possible that like touch.facebook, they simply haven't enabled support for IE9 yet as they haven't tested it properly yet.
HTML5Test is not a good "benchmark". It verify only if the browser has been marked to support, not the way it has been supported
Aphasaic2002 said:
It's no where near "fully capable"..
Go here on your WP7 browser for proof: http://html5test.com
See how IE9 stacks up compared to other phone browsers (the results are poor): http://html5test.com/results-mobile.html.
It is possible that HTML5 Gmail site is using a feature that is not supported. It's also possible that like touch.facebook, they simply haven't enabled support for IE9 yet as they haven't tested it properly yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well touch.facebook.com works perfectly fine and so does m.youtube.com which features a new HTML5 UI and support...its only Gmail and Google+ I am talking about.
dada051 said:
HTML5Test is not a good "benchmark". It verify only if the browser has been marked to support, not the way it has been supported
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed !!!!!!
Some websites that target WebKit, do not take advantage of the HTML5 / CSS that non webkit browsers do support, just because it is not WebKit, even if the browser supports another implementation of the style.
Normally, the issues are with experimental features.
In May of 2010, Microsoft was actually considering spoofing this, so sites targeting WebKit will render properly, despite the fact website developers did not do a good job at being cross browser compliant.
Here's a good link that explains it: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft...prefix-for-ie-mobile-for-windows-phone-7/6173
The problem is that webkit uses experimental css, but much is actually supported by IE. But, there is no corresponding -ie css specified.
This article gives some basic info: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/thebeebs/ar...-for-all-browsers-or-just-your-favourite.aspx
Here is an example of the css that targets specific browsers, but then also uses the general. It comes from here: http://felipe.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/a-proposal-to-drop-browser-vendor-prefixes/
Code:
#elem {
-moz-box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
-webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
-o-box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
-ms-box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
box-shadow: 0 0 10px gray;
}
Personally, I don't see a reason for IE to not handle -webkit prefixes.
If -webkit-box-shadow is specifed, but no -ms-box-shadow is specified, then treat the -webkit-box-shadow as -ms-box-shadow.
It is also possible that the server is not even supplying it, if the css supplied by the server is specific to the browser. Although most css, is just a file on theserver, it can be dynamically generated by the server or have fiel dynamically selected by the server. And the browser information that is sent to the server can be used to determine this.
There are toolkits out there for site development that basically makes your site only render properly on webkit browsers. Serious web developers should avoid these, since it creates more work to acually make a site that will render on all major browsers.
Again, the problems occur because of usage of experimental css and css that is not sent to non webkit browsers.
Excellent explanation @JVH3.
Mind you, it would also be nice if Microsoft had provided any way to change the user-agent string of the browser, beyond the "Desktop"/"Mobile" setting. It is a sad thing, but on the modern web having a user-agent switcher is being increasingly important.
Also, and possibly more relevant to the question, Google is absolutely atrocious about using non-standards-compliant HTML/CSS. Seriously, try sticking any of their sites into the W3C validator, and most will come up as totally broken. Instead of making a single cross-browser-compatible site, they code to specific quirks of Chrome first, Safari and other WebKit browsers second, Firefox third, and IE9 or Opera last or never. The official reason they do this is to minimize the amount of network bandwidth they use by taking advantage of various shorthand techniques that most browsers have, and not including browser-checks in the code they send (which increase the file size and therefore bandwidth). Unofficially, it feels an awful lot like a push to get people to use Chrome...
nice responses....makes sense...the only worry is when Google or other sites fix it as in making it cross platform and the same with every browser...be in html5 or webkit
Stock Browser
Not much to say about this browser. This browser comes with the phone and is not on the play store.
Dolphin Browser
PROS
Intuitive interface. Supports LastPass password manager, Evernote, screengrab taker. Syncs to Google bookmarks. Supports voice- or gesture-based navigation.
CONS
No desktop version. Slower than stock Android browser.
BOTTOM LINE
Dolphin Browser 8.8 isn't the fastest Android browser in Google Play, but the latest version retains its Editors' Choice designation for balancing performance with a thoughtful collection of mobile add-ons.
Credits: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383132,00.asp - More information about Dolphin Browser here.
Opera Web Browser
PROS
Clean interface. Flash support. Opera Link syncs bookmarks, Speed Dials, search engines. Scrolls "like butter."
CONS
No Add-ons. Separate search, URL fields a cavalier use of mobile real estate.
BOTTOM LINE
Although it cannot be customized to the degree of Dolphin or Firefox, Opera 11 is a svelte mobile browser with full-throated multimedia support.
Credits: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383239,00.asp - More information about Opera Web Browser here.
Skyfire
Interface
The interface itself is clean and familiar. The new social buttons seem to load up with slight lag. The twitter social but did not recognize me the second time I loaded it but the facebook remembered me so it might be a cookie issue. Other than that transitions and menus is fluid and everything else just work beautiful and it is just so nice. You will be up and running with this browser in no time if you are coming from different browsers.
Performance
I usually click a lot of links in twitter that takes me to website that take a while to load especially in dolphin browser mini. but Skyfire browser loaded up those usual pages in lightning quick speed. One site in particular that I visit often is Android Central and it usually takes longer with my previous browsers. Skyfire cut that loading time in nearly half. I must also point out that I am using Verizon 4g lte and that is why most sites load faster, your results may vary. Pages also render very quickly thus giving the illusion that everything is just faster.
Functionality
The app functions as a browser should; it takes you to websites the user directs it to. The difference here is that it does it better. I didn’t crunch any numbers to compare load times with other browsers, but it’s exponentially faster based on my experience with the stock Android browser, Dolphin Browser HD, Dolphin Browser Mini, and Mozilla Firefox Web Browser. The app itself is a bit heavy, and feels like all these features slow down the app itself, but not the browsing. Switching tabs, and user agents is pretty slick, and the app does it’s best to make everything quicker by laying out many shortcuts to help you out. I do wish the initial app load time was as quick as Dolphin Browser Mini, but by the time that app loads and then loads a page, it’s just about the same with Skyfire.
Credits: http://androidappreviewdaily.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/skyfire-4-0-4222011/ - More information about Skyfire browser here
Maxthon
Mention the word "mobile browser," and most people will think that you are going to start talking about the likes of Opera Mini, Opera Mobile, Skyfire or the mobile avatars of Chrome and Firefox, or maybe even some of the very good default browsers installed on some phones and tablets (such as the versions of Safari and Internet Explorer on iOS and Windows Phone devices). But there are other browsers in the mobile world as well and some of them every bit as good and in some regards even better than these worthies. And one of the very best is Maxthon.
Tech veterans will be familiar with Maxthon which started out as a desktop browser and has since also come out with mobile versions for Android devices (both phones and tablets). The browser is available for free download from Google Play. It works with all Android devices running version 1.6 and above and at about 2MB is not the heaviest around. However, it is when you start using the browser that you get an idea of what's so special about it.
Maxthon's interface is on the stark side - the launch screen will show you a row of icons linked to some popular websites, giving you one touch access to them. You can of course add to or subtract from the list, depending on your inclination. In a very neat touch, the browser comes with an App Center that gives you access to shortcuts to a number of popular websites classified according to subject - all you need to do is check the ones you want on your launch screen. You can also simply add sites by just entering their URLs Tabs are arranged neatly at the top of the browser window and the navigation toolbar at the bottom is relatively unpopulated with just forward, back, home, boomark, other options and full screen icons. The app has no ads whatsoever and best of all, browsing seems to be incredibly brisk, especially as compared to some of the other browsers we have seen.
Beneath this relatively interface are lurking a number of very powerful features. There is a download manager, support for gestures (write a 'C' on the screen to close a tab), the ability to sync bookmarks between the desktop version of the browser and its mobile avatar, to select and copy text and images, to share links across social networks, and in a vey neat touch, the option to view a web page as it would be rendered on a desktop, on Android, and even on an iPhone or an iPad. You can customise the look and feel of the browser by using themes and if you are the types that likes messing around with add-ons, there is a fair collection of them as well, including ones that let you take screenshots, read RSS feeds, kill tasks, look at missed calls and so on.
The best part of Maxthon is, however its relatively clean interface and speed. At no stage do you feel overwhelmed or confused by options. In fact, this is the kind of browser that one can simply start using in the most basic manner and then slowly start discovering new features. Its earlier editions were a tad buggy but recent updates have proved to be more solid. It looks simple, packs in lots of features, works incredibly fast, and it costs nothing. If you have an Android device and have not at least tried Maxthon for browsing the Web, you have missed out one of the best mobile browsing experiences you can have. It is the default browser on our Motorola Xoom and Desire HD already.
Credits: http://news.efytimes.com/e1/Daily App Review Maxthon Browser Android/82894 - More information on Maxthon here.
Firefox
Choice in browsers has been an integral part in the history of computing. Mozilla has been at the heart of the push for choice in browsers from its inception out of Netscape to the introduction of Firefox in 2004. Since 2004, Mozilla has been dedicated to giving users a choice in browsers not only on the desktop, but on mobile.
The latest version of Firefox for Android, available in Google Play today, comes in the midst of heavy competition in browsers for Android with Dolphin HD, Opera Mobile, Opera Mini, and Firefox each having been downloaded more than ten million times. Perhaps even more dauntingly, Google is in the process of making Chrome the default browser in Android. Chrome made headlines in the last six weeks as it surpassed Internet Explorer to become the most used browser internationally on desktops. Mozilla is keenly aware that by developing Firefox for Android they are competing with Google in a way that is much less obvious on the desktop.
Credits: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/06/26/review-firefox-for-android/ - More information on Firefox here.
Chrome
PROS
Fast. Streamlined interface. Easy navigation. Voice search. Excellent tab implementation. Quickly syncs between all platforms and devices.
CONS
Requires Android 4.0 and higher. No Flash. No plug-ins.
BOTTOM LINE
Chrome first full release on Android is a speed demon of a browser, combining a minimalist interface with advanced HTML 5 support.
Credits: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406535,00.asp - More information on Chrome here.
Nice information! But chrome does support incognito mode which I assume you mean by safe browsing mode.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda premium
shimp208 said:
Nice information! But chrome does support incognito mode which I assume you mean by safe browsing mode.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure, if you would want to investigate there is credits below and make sure to vote!
google chrome = lag city
my favourite browser speed wise is samsung galaxy s3 browser.
though overall (better tab multi task) stock android browser
boat browser ftw!
Chrome doesn't lag at all in my galaxy s3
Dolphin Browser with Dolphin Engine (beta) is, at least in my opinion, the fastest browser around. Except for maybe Opera Mini, but that one doesn't count . It has all the good things about Dolphin, themes, plugins, gestures etc. Gestures takes some time to get used to, but now that I remember them, I use them a whole lot. I like the interface a lot, the bookmark bar on the left is really useful, though on my old HTC Hero I had to disable it cause I made it expand a whole lot on that tiny screen. Not a problem on my One S. I kind of miss Chrome tab sync, but Chrome to phone is okay. Overall I would say it is by far the best android browser (even the Dolphin browser on Play Store doesn't compare)
Edit: found out the beta is on the market as well: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dolphin.browser.lab.en
I've been back and forth with chrome and dolphin although a feature I don't like about chrome is once you leave the app and once you open it again your tabs are still open. I usually forget to close which can get annoying but for some people this is a great feature.
Bump .
Bump .
Chrome does great Work.
Cheers.
I recognize that this issue is really with Chrome and not specific to my Nexus 5, so if this should have been posted elsewhere instead, my apologies in advance.
The problem -
I am finding that increasingly Chrome's "request desktop version" option is unable to get me out of mobile site versions. When the site doesn't have its own mechanism for changing between the two, this glitch can become annoying.
I know that site designers probably have a role in breaking this functionality, but at the same time, it seems to me that all browsers must be able to appear as a desktop if they really want to, because browsers determine what header information / system specs to communicate to the site. So why are there an increasing number of sites where I can't escape the mobile version using this menu item in Chrome?
In the past, I've solved this by using Dolphin, set permanently to desktop mode. However, a couple problems with this work-around exist:
- I've now run into sites that even Dolphin can't force to go desktop version.
- I don't particularly like Dolphin, and it's a pain to switch to it for one-off uses.
Any thoughts?
It seems like a great idea to make a browser whose sole selling point is that it returns the exact system / browser info that a vanilla desktop browser would, and provides no indication to the website that it's a mobile device. There are just so many sites with horrible mobile versions
rhd-android said:
I recognize that this issue is really with Chrome and not specific to my Nexus 5, so if this should have been posted elsewhere instead, my apologies in advance.
The problem -
I am finding that increasingly Chrome's "request desktop version" option is unable to get me out of mobile site versions. When the site doesn't have its own mechanism for changing between the two, this glitch can become annoying.
I know that site designers probably have a role in breaking this functionality, but at the same time, it seems to me that all browsers must be able to appear as a desktop if they really want to, because browsers determine what header information / system specs to communicate to the site. So why are there an increasing number of sites where I can't escape the mobile version using this menu item in Chrome?
In the past, I've solved this by using Dolphin, set permanently to desktop mode. However, a couple problems with this work-around exist:
- I've now run into sites that even Dolphin can't force to go desktop version.
- I don't particularly like Dolphin, and it's a pain to switch to it for one-off uses.
Any thoughts?
It seems like a great idea to make a browser whose sole selling point is that it returns the exact system / browser info that a vanilla desktop browser would, and provides no indication to the website that it's a mobile device. There are just so many sites with horrible mobile versions
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From my experience, this is because sites are basing which site to display on the resolution of the device rather than the user agent. In the case of the N5, whether you have Desktop mode or Phone mode enabled, you're still reporting a 1080x1920 resolution (note the order). No desktop computer will have a screen width of 1080px (desktop monitor in portrait notwithstanding) thus it concludes you're on a 1080p mobile, therefore mobile website for you!
it is utterly infuriating and I share your pain...
Is there a site we can test that on? Flip to landscape...
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rootSU said:
Is there a site we can test that on? Flip to landscape...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Engadget is an example, and flipping to landscape doesn't solve it.
So it must be detecting something other than screen resolution and user agent.
rhd-android said:
Engadget is an example, and flipping to landscape doesn't solve it.
So it must be detecting something other than screen resolution and user agent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
probably detecting the OS and forcing it that way.
rhd-android said:
Engadget is an example, and flipping to landscape doesn't solve it.
So it must be detecting something other than screen resolution and user agent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I found engadget and npr.org in another thread and landscape didn't fix it. Maybe as @Zepius says
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rootSU said:
Yeah I found engadget and npr.org in another thread and landscape didn't fix it. Maybe as @Zepius says
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
looking at engadget's source, they use the service optimizely. which looks to be a website optimizer for mobile. i bet it checks the OS to determine how to display the webpage.
Zepius said:
looking at engadget's source, they use the service optimizely. which looks to be a website optimizer for mobile. i bet it checks the OS to determine how to display the webpage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe this is a silly question, but why can't the browser lie about that too?
rhd-android said:
Maybe this is a silly question, but why can't the browser lie about that too?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
because its querying the system every time there is a request for the OS.
Zepius said:
because its querying the system every time there is a request for the OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, I should have phrased that differently, my response wasn't very clear -
If Chrome actually wanted to "request desktop version" feature to works, wouldn't they want to tell websites that the OS was Windows? In other words, if "request desktop version" spoofs in a user agent from a desktop browser, why wouldn't that feature also spoof the OS when asked by the website?
rhd-android said:
Sorry, I should have phrased that differently, my response wasn't very clear -
If Chrome actually wanted to "request desktop version" feature to works, wouldn't they want to tell websites that the OS was Windows? In other words, if "request desktop version" spoofs in a user agent from a desktop browser, why wouldn't that feature also spoof the OS when asked by the website?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
because thats not the way the app is coded. the websites are hard coded to ignore user agents (i believe) and to go based on the OS to tell if its mobile or desktop. you would need a browser or a mod to fake the OS name/version.
Well. In reality, websites can't really determine that you're using Android as chrome removes this information when you're using the "desktop version" checkbox. Here's an exemple of the useragent sent by chrome with/out the checkbox :
Without the "show desktop version" : Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.4.2; Nexus 5 Build/KOT49H) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.117 Mobile Safari/537.36
With the "show desktop version" : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.117 Safari/537.36
On a real chrome desktop (windows) : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36
So, there's not really any information (just the Windows NT 6.1) that could say to the website is they need to show a mobile version of their website.
Maybe the website is coded to adjust itselft automaticaly to the screen resolution (responsive design) or, maybe they just put a cookie when you go on the website without the "show desktop version" and, when you enable it, cookie is still present, and they continue to display the mobile version ? (So, try to clean cookies, etc, before checking the box )
Charlus97 said:
Well. In reality, websites can't really determine that you're using Android as chrome removes this information when you're using the "desktop version" checkbox. Here's an exemple of the useragent sent by chrome with/out the checkbox :
Without the "show desktop version" : Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.4.2; Nexus 5 Build/KOT49H) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.117 Mobile Safari/537.36
With the "show desktop version" : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.117 Safari/537.36
On a real chrome desktop (windows) : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36
So, there's not really any information (just the Windows NT 6.1) that could say to the website is they need to show a mobile version of their website.
Maybe the website is coded to adjust itselft automaticaly to the screen resolution (responsive design) or, maybe they just put a cookie when you go on the website without the "show desktop version" and, when you enable it, cookie is still present, and they continue to display the mobile version ? (So, try to clean cookies, etc, before checking the box )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I cleared cookies - that didn't help.
In fact, I also just tried an app:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appo2.ua
It launches an instance of Chrome with the user-agent already changed (no clicking "request desktop version" required). I launched an instance as IE 10. I went to a user agent site to confirm that the UA was changed (in fact, I already felt pretty confident because the google search results were full desktop size/scale). UA was confirmed. Cleared all cookies, cache. Set my phone to landscape. Visited engadged by typing the ULR fresh (not a bookmark or anything). Boom, still goes to the mobile version
Doing some googling, I ran into some techniques for detecting mobile browsers. I'm betting that Engadget (and others where this occurs are using a CSS based technique similar to #5 or #6 here:
http://designm.ag/resources/8-techniques-for-mobile-retina-devices-detection/
rhd-android said:
I cleared cookies - that didn't help.
In fact, I also just tried an app:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appo2.ua
It launches an instance of Chrome with the user-agent already changed (no clicking "request desktop version" required). I launched an instance as IE 10. I went to a user agent site to confirm that the UA was changed (in fact, I already felt pretty confident because the google search results were full desktop size/scale). UA was confirmed. Cleared all cookies, cache. Set my phone to landscape. Visited engadged by typing the ULR fresh (not a bookmark or anything). Boom, still goes to the mobile version
Doing some googling, I ran into some techniques for detecting mobile browsers. I'm betting that Engadget (and others where this occurs are using a CSS based technique similar to #5 or #6 here:
http://designm.ag/resources/8-techniques-for-mobile-retina-devices-detection/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hm.. What's the exact URL of the mobile version of the site you're redirected to ?
Charlus97 said:
Hm.. What's the exact URL of the mobile version of the site you're redirected to ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The URL just stays at the engaget root URL (www.engadget.com).
I've observed something interesting though. When I visit this site in Chrome on Android:
http://www.whatismybrowser.com/
... it actually lists a very low screen resolution (376 x 557)
On that basis, I can see why sites (engadget, etc) show the mobile version. The question is why Chrome would report a lower screen resolution.
rhd-android said:
The URL just stays at the engaget root URL (www.engadget.com).
I've observed something interesting though. When I visit this site in Chrome on Android:
http://www.whatismybrowser.com/
... it actually lists a very low screen resolution (376 x 557)
On that basis, I can see why sites (engadget, etc) show the mobile version. The question is why Chrome would report a lower screen resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, chrome doesn't seems to send the information itself. Maybe a JS script detect it. 'Gonna check that
---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------
Yep, whatismybrowser.com detects screen size with a bit of JS
Not sure that we can change it even on a real desktop browser..
---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------
So, of course, engadget.com too.
It detects screen resolution changes and adapt his style to the resolution. You can check it easily pen the page on a real desktop browser and resize the windows of the browser : same style as mobile version.
And there's nothing we can do about that :/
can't even do a *about:debug* in the addy bar anymore..
when pressing go, chrome hits the web, with the addy bar reading chrome://debug/ -
check this out -
Brandon Arnold 4 months ago
With mobile first design you don’t need a site switcher, because it’s the same site. There’s nothing on the desktop layout that you don’t see on your mobile, but its better formatted for its screen. The Chrome option you're mentioning is a legacy thing, thats taking actual mobile sites (non-responsive) and requesting to remove the M-dot from the domain. This is necessary because most mobile sites offered a limited amount of content that differed from the desktop. Even the Google Chrome Responsive website, when viewed in the chrome mobile browser has that option to switch grayed out.
With that said, you can try some javascript solutions that change the viewport, like this one*
http://https://github.com/chrismorata/Responsive-View-Full-Site
*Note: This has not been tested with F5
in response to:
I know it's been asked before in the forum but he thread is closed so I can't add anything. I'm aware of Foundation's mobile first principle but it's not mobile ONLY.
Is there an elegant way to give people an option to view a desktop version?
Both Android's default browser and Google Chrome mobile has options in the menu so I don't think it's a minor feature.
...it stalemates there, with an added;
Thanks for your replies. I'll checkout the javascript solution posted above.
It's just that some users really prefer seeing what they're used to on a desktop. I know it's the same content but the truth is some visitors just want to see what they're used to.
.. looks like for now, android chrome has gotten a gnome d.e. thingy effect..
Hi,
I just answered an AirDroid question over on AndroidForums, and was surprised to realize that there's apparently no zeroconf (Bonjour) support in AirDroid. It looks fairly easy to implement, and would eliminate a lot of your FAQ problems, since the PC could easily find the Android phone. Maybe you've already implemented this in AirDroid 3, or can do so in AirDroid 3.1 ...
http://androidforums.com/android-applications/882203-fix-ip-airdroid-pc.html
From that post (not sure if I can post a link):
register a zeroconf (Bonjour) service in their Android app, and locating that device using zeroconf in the javascript of their web page.
The Android portion is documented as "Network Service Discovery", which includes a registerService() method.
The javascript (web browser) functionality is available through the commonly used node.js library.
[ this would eliminate the entire local IP address problem, and the need to deal with static IP addresses ]