Related
"Mobile first" is recommended, I know.
However, I understand this to be because of the progressive enhancement principle.
But when I build a simple site, where I am just scaling/re-arranging items to fit better and have better legibility on smaller devices, can I not just as well start with the desktop design and work my way down to mobile?
It's near impossible to design something perfectly for every possible screen. The basic "breakpoint" as you put it has always been to determine what the client needs, and what they expect. Presently, most clients need a site that meets some basic mobile requirements or at least has a few mobile-friendly pages, even if deeper content is still in a desktop format. There is no one fixed answer for this. However, you should probably be conceptualizing how your design will work in both formats and trying to minimize the amount of rewriting you'll need to do from one to the other, by keeping the layouts as fluid as possible.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I try to find a way to develop real native mobile apps, cross-platform. The amount of tools I found is huge, very huge.
All of the tools I have tried 'said' that the end result will be native, but in fact it isn't true. It is an executable with a webbrowser in it and some extra native layer/framwork to device specific features.
The reason I want a real native app is:
Speed and compact
Avoid browser issues
Market acceptance
Avoid easy/'script kiddie" reverse engineering
The products I have tried:
Appcelerator (does not work correctly on my system)
PhoneGap (does not create REAL native apps)
Embarcadero radPHP EX2 (uses PhoneGap)
Embarcadero radStudio EX2 (cannot create mobile/android apps?)
Adobe Flash Builder (Works very well but relies on Air, so apps are huge and no
native devices such as vibration (posible, but must write it
yourself)
Flash Develop (but same as Adobe Flash Builder)
..... and some others ;-) like moSync......
Currently I have downloaded "RhoStudio" but has some doubts about it because in the introduction video they talk about the things that I don't want.
Target directions are in the first place Android, iOS and maybe in the future Windows Phone.
Note: I don't have a Mac so I cannot compile it on a Mac.
Is what I want impossible or is there such product around that can do this?
EDIT:
See my answer, the answer is NO!
After 2 years asking this question I can say: NO, it is NOT possible, it's a myth.
All products I have tried use some kind of wrapping or use a second language as a layer to the call the native stuff. Although the libraries are native, the main program is not. The latest answer of Cosku with smartface.io is a good example, they claim it is native but it is NOT.
Why is it so difficult? The problem is the programming language (differences in language that makes it complex) that is required for a platform. It is too complex to translate a second language into the platform's main language and it's specific libraries, you can only achieve this by wrapping things with native binaries. Second obstacle is the needed compiler that must be able to run cross-platform.
But why rely on a second language or third-party development tool to build apps when the output is mostly the same is bad, the problem is perfectly illustrated in this image:
http://xkcd.com/927/
The image is about standards, but that's what happen, creating a new standard for a standard. For example, when using PhoneGap, you have to learn the basics of the PhoneGap API. You rely on a 'new standard' calling PhoneGap. The problem with this is that you completely rely on PhoneGap support and it existence. It can introduce a second weakness in the lifecycle of an app.
IMO, if you want to wrap things to make it cross-platform it is not a smart idea to rely on third-party products and libraries. Better is to write a wrapper yourself, like I did and skip the bloat. A real benefit of this all is that you wrote the wrapper code yourself and you understand underlying structures. Besides it is easier to extend or change and you can skip the things you don't need.
Today I create and design the UI of an app in the longest existing and stable 'language' HTML with a javascript interface. The app can also run in a browser too and does not break when there is a specific function missing, like vibrate for example. You can not get the same results with phonegap, try it! You can design the app with responsive techniques at ease like a normal website (try this in Android for example ;-)). Technically, it can run everywhere, on any platform in a browser or webview but don't use any special Mobile javascript libraries! You don't need these special libraries, really, use the 'normal' library versions instead.
I have wrote a compiler/obfuscator for it to 'pack' the UI-source into just one file that will be loaded by the native shell. This is to protect the source, so it is not easy to view or modify the source.
The only thing I have to do, to support the app platform is write a native wrapper for it. If a platform dies for some reason (for example Windows Mobile in the past), I only have to write a new wrapper for it. This is easier to do than write the whole program again from scratch. Besides, when there is a new platform it can also run in the platforms browser too.
If your app not rely on specific hardware (like a game) or can run without special hardware requirements, this is the way to go to extend the life-cycle of your app. Use HTML5 and javascript to design the GUI and use a native shell to use specific OS features.
Is it slow? I have to say no. At least don't use any bulky and bloated special designed mobile javascript library stuff and don't use the click event on touchscreen devices, use touchstart instead. Also the HTML engines will/are improved these days and there is better support for HTML5 features that enables you to write powerful HTML5 webapps without the need to implement this in a native language.
IMO, this the way to go (for me) and my journey to find the best way develop mobile apps cross-platform and to extend the life-cycle. Hopefully, it can help you too to decide what is the best to do.
For cross-platform native iOS, Android, Mac, and Windows apps, check out Xamarin. Code in C#, compile to native. For iOS, you can leverage the XCode tools for app layout, and Xamarin Studio integrates very cleanly with it.
And for the sake of completeness, PhoneGap has a worthy (yes, WebView based) competitor in TRIGGER.IO. While it's approach is similar to PhoneGap/Cordova, it improves the API for accessing native functionality, simplifies push notifications, and performs much faster cloud builds.
I am not associated with either of these products in any way... I just like them both.
Have you tried www.codenameone.com? It's open source, java based, only need eclipse or netbeans to develop.
Firstly
Appcelerator (does not work correctly on my system)
Is there a certain issue your facing ? are getting java errors or something, might not have been setup correctly.
Short answer is no, you have to have some level of abstraction in order to achieve this, java and objective-c are completely different languages, as well as Android and IOS SDK's having different methods, procedures, styles, design's etc. There is no way to have something work on both without there being a middle layer to convert or render.
Appcelerator will be the closet thing to what your looking for as its not a webview wrapper like the others, true it does interpret javascript, but because its not wrapped in a webview you avoid the browser issues.
Speed and compact comes more down how you code the app more than what its coded on, true Titanium apps will be bigger in size because of the library but that doesn't make it bad as such, the benefits of getting 2 apps far out weighs the extra few megabytes I would think.
I'm pretty sure all of these tools have market acceptance as they wouldn't be successful without it, again for the likes of apples requirements its down to the way you design it, not the tool in the background.
If you want to use IOS you will need a mac, if you want to publish in the app store alone you need xcode and the built project to use the application loader, I'm not aware of any tool (even the webview wrappers) that don't require you to have the IOS SDK as it can't run in the simulator, package the app or run any of the code without it.
If you want to make apps you have 2 choices, learn each platform or use one of these tools, if there was some magic tool that did everything I guarantee it would be the most popular thing on the planet and you would have heard about it / found it.
This is one reason why "the cloud" is so popular. Instead of writing your app several times over, you write all of the functionality on a server. The actual "apps" are then simply your user interface to the functionality, which can be really simple depending on your needs. If it is that simple, then you could write the apps separately for each platform, but they would all use the same "cloud" backend.
If I am not mistaken, this is representative of what most apps by companies who have a cloud architecture do, and is also why many require a data connection.
I don't think that it is possible to write once and run everywhere without some kind of wrapper or layer, this is due to the fact that each platform has separate APIs and even programming languages. You would be hard pressed to write one set of source code that runs natively on both Apple and Android devices, for example. This is not to say that it isn't technically possible, desktop operating systems have had such cross-compiling portability for years with C/C++, and Java only made that much easier. Of course, the engineers of Mobile operating systems don't seem to share a vision of interoperable APIs.
To conclude, I would recommend A) writing the app twice (awful I know, but it will provide the reliablity of native execution on both devices, and can be done with minimal pain) or B) breaking down and using one of the "script-kiddie" frameworks. These actually may not be that bad if your app is simple enough, and it may not be that reverse-engineerable at all. If anyone has any suggestions as to the best "near-native" cross platform framework, that would be useful.
Well, there are several things to consider, if you want native look and feel there are frameworks like Sencha(www.sencha.com) and Kendo UI(http://www.kendoui.com/) that simulate it on JavaScript side. I found them both good looking on Android and iPhone but no support for Windows Phone yet.
If you are looking for real native widgets combined with HTML you can look into MoSync's Native UI(http://www.mosync.com/documentation/manualpages/jsnativeui-library), which support windows phone Metro UI too, or Titanium(http://docs.appcelerator.com/titanium/2.1/index.html).
Anyway one other thing is that you can use packagers like Phonegap or MoSync or AppMobi(which I think uses something similar to PhoneGap build) to wrap your app and put it on App markets. from these list PhoneGap especially is not designed to provide you with any specific UI functionality although I have seen some attempts to add tab bar plugins to Phonegap.
I don't know if it's just me, but I really enjoy some application's GUI designs, apps like iTunes/Avast, or some media players like KMPlayer. So I was thinking of making my GUIs look different and I later found out that it's called a GUI skin (am I right?).
I read somewhere that it's not such a good idea to use or make them regarding app's speed, usability and all that. So the question is: Is it good and safe to make GUI skins? and if so, how could I start programming one (cos I don't want to use off-the-shelf ones unless they're really great). What's the main idea behind them. I am expecting to be able to change the whole form's look and feel and possibly change it's shape.
Any idea on this is greatly appreciated.
Good or Bad?
Bad. I don't have a nuanced answer for you. I don't have a bunch of exceptions. I don't have a thoughtful essay to write on when skins might or not be appropriate. I have an unequivocal: Bad.
Custom skins are the cancer that is killing the Windows UI, turning it into an ugly, unusable jumble of mixed metaphors.
If you must theme because your app is the exception and you're just so cool, please provide an option to turn it off and use the regular OS theme. Not a skinned approximation of Aero, Luna or Classic, but the actual normal OS theme, whatever (potentially custom) theme is chosen.
As far as I am concerned there are two kinds of applications that might be skinnable: Media players for example might benefit from looking like an actual physical appliance (PowerDVD or so did that, iirc). However, the actual use cases for such things are very few, if any – the trend today seems to be that such applications have little to no UI and instead concentrate on the content (VLC is an exception).
Then there is the large host of applications where either developers or managers got creative or too much time on their hands. Raymond Chen calls this “I bet someone got a really nice bonus for that feature.” – a sentiment I deeply agree with. First of all, skins are often a non-feature; the novelty wears off really fast, they don't actually help a user with whatever problem they're having to use your program and finally, for many programs that exhibit skins, there is really no need at all. I mean, come on; how often do you open your AV program, or your graphics card settings panel, revelling in the glory of its beautifully and carefully-designed skin? Never, right.
So then is the question why you even want to devote development resources (either your own or others') to create something that serves no useful purpose, except making your application stand out visually. The windows UX guidelines also have something on window frames and branding. Note here especially the following section:
Don't use custom controls for branding. Rather, use custom controls when necessary to create a special immersive experience or when special functionality is needed.
Incorrect:
This example shows a custom control incorrectly used for branding.
Gadgets are another type of application that can get away with custom designs, but then again, those are often only used shortly and serve generally as either informational things or with ephemeral interaction.
If you do skins, do everyone a favor in making it (a) optional and (b) use the standard controls and just paint them yourself. This enables accessibility tools to still know what your program displays instead of just seeing a bunch of picture boxes that are used as buttons.
I see a lot of talk how HTML5 video tag will kill Flash. But while video is the most widely used part of Flash/SL, it's only a small part of their technical abilities. For instance you can write a game using full 3D graphics and socket connections in Flex, and serious business applications, etc.
Is the thinking that Javascript will kill those parts of Flash/Flex/SL? Because while that seems feasible now for even quite rich web-apps, what about any kind of high-performance app like real-time graphics?
You can do some pretty cool things with HTML5, Canvas and the like. Check out the Google-hosted http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ (which, really should be named HTML5 experiments, as most run fine on HTML5 browsers). You can get an idea of what is possible, including 3D rendering, complex games and some pretty amazing animations.
(source: chromeexperiments.com)
Sketchpad by Michael Deal
basically, this question has been around already.
The answer in short: no, HTML5 will not replace anything. HTML5 will however offer a standard for features currently only available through plugins. Once HTML5 is released, which is scheduled for 2022, it will be a great thing. Still, even by then, if IE survives, I doubt it's support will be outstanding.
There has been a very similar question to which I provided a rather lengthy but detailed answer: should web developers learn flash
My personal opinion about anyone who thinks HTML5 will replace 3rd party plugins is, that they lack basic understanding of HTML5's role or sufficient knowledge about any plugin and have little if any grasp of how the web evolves.
Yes, the day HTML5 is sufficiently spread for large companies to rely on it, many of them will be able to replace 3rd party plugins within their web applications. However, as pointed out in my other post, the web is constantly evolving. HTML5 does not provide new features, that weren't available using plugins. And HTML5 does not provide all features currently available using plugins. New types of apps, services and content distribution mechanisms will arise. Also, as long as JavaScript stays fully dynamic, JS runtimes will never be able to provide the same speed as runtimes designed to run bytecode generated from statically typed languages.
Personally, for the client side, I basically only target the Flash Player, because to me it is the most convenient platform. I am not afraid that HTML5 might kill flash, for a simple reason:
Until HTML5 is really usable and largely supported through sufficient user adaptation, it will take several years. In the same time, all major plugins will continue to evolve, as well as their eco-system, including developement tools, cross-compilers and compatibility layers.
Today, you already need no knowledge of HTML, CSS and sometimes even JavaScript to create webapps, using GWT, qooxdoo or other tools.
HTML+CSS+JS represents nothing more than a platform that more and more languages are able to target. Using reasonable amounts of abstraction, one will sooner or later be able to develop apps in a totally platform agnostic manner, causing virtually no overhead for the lion's share of all apps: GUI (including localization, validation etc.) and application logics.
In the end, there's no reason to get excited. Currently, both Flash and Silverlight exceed HTML+JavaScript implementations in speed and features exposed through the available API. That is, why people use it. Altough unlikely, some day they may become obsolete. In this bright, bright future, far, far away, I will be happy to compile my sources to run in a JavaScript interpreter rather than on AVM2.
On a vaguely related note: check out Haxe.
There are many high-performance apps with real-time data streaming and graphics in production today that have been built with Flex. You can see some examples of these in the flex.org showcase. As always, deciding on a technology comes down to what is being built, who it's being built for, and who is building it. Flash, Flex, Silverlight, HTML5, etc will all coexist.
The discussions I've been part of on this subject, pretty much always seem to come to the conclusion that, while the HTML 5 standard will be a a great thing, once it's in place. It will by definition be a standard, standards take a long time to change, therefore innovation will be driven largely by plugins like Flash and SL.
And yes you can do a lot of what Flash and SL can do with Javascript, however Flash/Flex has the strong point of being used for desktop installed Air applications, and Silverlight has the similar thing with their "Out Of Browser" functionality. These are things where they clearly have the upper hand over Javascript.
At the end of the day it's not a matter of who will kill who, but rather which tool is the right one for the job and what skills does you / your development team have.
That's my 2c anyway...
Did Flex replace HTML forms? Have HTML forms killed Flex? Has C++ replaced C? Has Ruby or Lua or Python killed Haskell or Scheme or assembly?
Seriously, what is the obsession lately over whether HTML5 will kill plugins? Is it so hard to imagine people using Flash for content that needs to stand out and maximize expressiveness, and using HTML5 for content that needs to utilize standard metaphors and maximize accessibility?
In other words, no - the thinking among thinking people is not that the HTML5 stack will kill Flash/Flex/SL. If things work as they should, the plugins will keep innovating what you can do with proprietary techniques, and HTML will keep taking the most successful of those innovations and standardizing them. And if things don't work well - if a plugin fails to innovate, or a new version of HTML is done badly, then they'll fade into obscurity as developers stick with whatever solves their problems.
I think it depends on the authoring tools and the efficiency of the browsers. It is reported that the upcoming Flash CS5 export content directly as a HTML5 canvas. So the canvas can be a quite reasonable flash substitution.
For "high-performance app like real-time graphics", see WebGL. Mozilla and WebKit already have experimental support for WebGL, which is based on the <canvas> element.
For sockets, there are WebSockets, which are also experimental in some browsers.
For background processing, which can improve the user experience, there are web workers (experimental again).
A lot of experimental stuff, but they are improving them constantly, so at some point, even without an HTML5 standard defining them, we might see games specifically targeted for a certain browser (actually, there is some proof of concept but I can't find the link right now).
I think JS already has killed Flash/SL/JavaFX. JS is the most used language on the web, so just add a few features, enhance some tidbits and voila. Flash is alive because of videos and games, no serious website uses Flash nor any other RIA. Just wait, it's going to be a hell of a ride the next few years.
I've been developing with XHTML, CSS and Javascript for about 4 years now.
I love it a lot and hate it a little. I've looked into Flash and Silverlight a bit, but as a developer, I'm not too keen on them.
One reason is that they lock you into a vendor and generally, into using that vendor's tools. E.g. Adobe Flash or Microsoft Visual Studio, etc.
Also, Silverlight seems to mix content, layout/styling and behavior and into a single markup language, whereas I like the XHTML way of separating them out in code, but bringing them together in the user's web browser.
I also applaud the usability of the web, e.g. back button, hyperlinks, etc. which are set-in-stone standards that people are used to dealing with.
However, I'm seeing a lot of industry support for Silverlight and Flash. As far as .NET Developer jobs, I'm seeing less jobs for front-end/.NET developers and more jobs for Silverlight/.NET developers.
Will HTML developers still be employable in the future, or should I consider moving to a proprietary platform such as Silverlight?
While Flash/Silverlight skills may be worth developing, I think you will find that general web development skills will still be required for some years to come. Mobile apps in particular seem to place more emphasis on good, basic web design without dependence on plugins and or client-side code. Eventually, I would expect web standards to evolve to subsume the best (or at least most used) features of proprietary plugins. The web, at least, seems to be a place where people tend to favor solutions that maintain independence over lock-in to specific vendor technologies.
No, I think that idea will never fully catch on. The problem is really about the platform being developed on.
Look at how accessible the web is. Almost any machine can get on the web. My phone, my iPod, my laptop, my 11 year old PII machine, my gaming tower, all can access the same web.
The devices I have are not the limit to what can reach the web either. I think just about every gaming platform and cell phone can get on the web, as well as thin terminals running any OS imaginable. I'm sure there are others also.
The big thing looks like it's going to be the mobile market in the next few years. Some mobile devices can run flash, but it isn't used much because of the poor support & performance. The only way that the mobile web can work is by using pure standards based solutions, because that's really the only baseline that can be trusted to exist.
No matter what proprietary technologies come out, I can always rely on the fact that my XHTML pages will still render successfully on whatever device decides to access it. The same can't be said for flash or silverlight.
At the same time, I can also guarantee you that there will be a bigger market for flash and silverlight because the web is becoming more "media rich" in some niche markets (YouTube, Adobe Air, Hulu, Google Gears, etc. to name a few examples). There will absolutely be a market for it, but I wouldn't say it will defeat XHTML and web standards because the web is constantly being redefined.
No matter how much Flash or Silverlight try to take on, the technology will move so fast that the only baseline that I think will remain will be standards like XHTML and CSS.
Flash has been around for years and still hasn't taken over. I think that is one good example of how hard it is to replace XHTML.
Go for server-side development of any kind, but I wouldn't become a Silverlight or Flash specialist.
<CrystalBallMode>
To be honest I can't see it happening. Other than the reasons mentioned by tvanfosson and DanHerbert, the XHTML + CSS + JS stack just grew mature enough so that things like AJAX and jQuery make pretty much all the lightweight client side stuff easy with these tools (as opposed to things like streaming video, heavy computations or sockets etc.)
Common technological inertia will just guarantee that the existing things will stay around. People are much more likely to use something that has been around for a while and has been extended to meet the latest requirements than to use something totally new. Of course there are great paradigm shifts every now and then like the native to managed code transition but I don't see that happening with Flash or Silverlight.
</CrystalBallMode>
My hope is that what comes out of all of this is a new standardized web platform truly suited to building the web applications that people want to see with tools that developers really want to use. I see all of the effort going to trying to shoehorn these legacy web technologies into the "Web 2.0" model and I just wish that this effort could go towards making a truly revolutionary "Web v.Next".
Don't get me wrong, I really like what jQuery is doing to make Javascript client code easier, but it's still Javascript and my personal preference is to work with strongly typed languages with productive development tools.
In the meantime, I think tools like Silverlight and Flash have a lot to offer and help you do things more easily in some cases than in other web technologies, and there are some things you simply can't do any other way. But I don't think Silverlight or Flash or any other technology is the end game, just a step in the right direction.
Consider for a moment that you can manipulate a web page using Javascript, (X)HTML, and CSS with a great deal of overlap in functionality and yet ALL three technologies remain in prominent use today. The reason for this is because all three languages are different tools meant to solve different problems and no one of them can serve as an adequate replacement for the other.
Its the same thing with Flash / Silverlight vs these existing web technologies. In fact, I work in a dev shop that builds Flash based e-learning. One of our current products was originally built to use a purely Flash-based solution for navigation, etc. However, as the product has continued to evolve we have actually moved a lot of the functionality from the Flash-based e-learning module and into regular html pages.
In other words, I don't think that we'll be abandoning the current tools that web developers use any time soon. For the most part I see Flash / Silverlight as additional tools that will solve particular problems better than we were able to solve them previously.
Neither one is going to win out anytime soon. I expect which one is used will depend entirely on the purpose for many years to come.
The reason you're seeing so many job offerings for Silverlight of late is because it's a relatively new technology and just recently gained some momentum.
Though, I do expect Silverlight to make quick work of Flash.
I sure hope so. And yes, I think they will. There will be some development on legacy (XHTML/CSS/JS) apps for re-tuning purposes, but I think there will come a day when new apps are simply not created on those platforms.
Mobile phones are the issue right now. Flash isn't available on many of the major phone models. And their browsers are all over the map. Luckily there's Webkit (iPhone and G1).
If Silverlight makes it to a web platform then it will be a nice viable alternative to the hodgepodge of technologies that are currently in use. FYI, Microsfoft says Silverlight on Android is very possible. On the iPhone, hard to say, Apple is weird about such things.
AOL recently created a RIA version of it's email client in Silverlight. Looks nice and there's no Javascript errors to worry about. From a developer standpoint, that's huge.