3 ms·

1) The fact that webapps can run relatively well strikes me as hopeful, considering how much more inefficient using HTML/CSS/JS is compared to Java applets. Or

by mercer 10y ago

1) The fact that webapps can run relatively well strikes me as hopeful, considering how much more inefficient using HTML/CSS/JS is compared to Java applets. Or is the latter not the case (honest question)? 2) I'm not sure if our expectations have lowered much. Perhaps it's more that mobile interfaces are generally simpler and thus easier to make 'native enough'? Although I think there's more going on in regards to 2. I was never bothered so much by the UI of a java applet looking different. What bothered me was that even very fundamental stuff like input fields and scrolling felt both alien and shittier than native. And while it's certainly possible to make a web app just as shitty, if you rely on 'stock' html elements, a lot of the subtle native behavior carries over. Just a few weeks ago, for example, I built a web-app for mobile devices. It felt off immediately because the scrolling didn't feel right. All I had to do was turn on the momentum scrolling (with a line of ios-specific css), and the scrolling suddenly felt native. Had I used a hypothetical Java applet equivalent, I might've had to either go for a non-native-feeling scroll or build it myself. While I of course can't prove any of this, I think what people care about is that things feel native, not the 'skin' used to display it.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> 2) I'm not sure if our expectations have lowered much. Perhaps it's more that mobile interfaces are generally simpler and thus easier to make 'native enough'? I think people finally called the bluff that users have any expectations. And even if they had, what they don't have is choice. The current market is that everyone is building a walled garden around their selling proposition, so if a company decides to make a web app instead of a native one, then that's all you have. Nobody will make a better one and risk getting sued. If a service doesn't want third party applications, then they won't happen. As you note in your comment, if one sticks with default, "stock" elements in their web app, things look and behave OK on a given platform. But nobody does that, for some reason everyone has to screw this up with tons of CSS and JavaScript that make the whole thing maybe prettier, but also noticeably slower and without all the native idiosyncrasies.
flukus 10y ago
> considering how much more inefficient using HTML/CSS/JS is compared to Java applets. Or is the latter not the case (honest question)? It's a really interesting question actually because it's so hard to compare the two. On any objective measure, today's web apps are much better than applets in terms of responsiveness, etc. But then again, an applet could run on machines with 16MB of RAM total. I think you'd be hard pressed to get plain html page in a modern browser to run on a machine like that. Either way, in both cases we had a much better solution in native apps. > 2. I was never bothered so much by the UI of a java applet looking different. What bothered me was that even very fundamental stuff like input fields and scrolling felt both alien and shittier than native. Modern web apps can score better here, but quite often they don't. The more complex the become the less native they get, scrolling, text input, etc are generally OK (unless your an arshole that overrides scroll behaviour), but html still doesn't have an equivalent for native table views and the goodies (navigation, resizing, performance) that comes with them. For me the skinning does matter though, I have a beautiful, consistent desktop that browsers (not even electron apps) shit all over. When something doesn't look quite right from the second you open it it magnifies all the other differences.
- mercer 10y ago
  > Modern web apps can score better here, but quite often they don't. The more complex the become the less native they get, scrolling, text input, etc are generally OK (unless your an arshole that overrides scroll behaviour), but html still doesn't have an equivalent for native table views and the goodies (navigation, resizing, performance) that comes with them. Oh yeah, complex UI stuff is definitely a good reason to avoid web apps. But for many, probably even most apps it's precisely scrolling, text input, and other 'basic' stuff that matters, and in those cases a web app's 'default' will be more native. > For me the skinning does matter though, I have a beautiful, consistent desktop that browsers (not even electron apps) shit all over. When something doesn't look quite right from the second you open it it magnifies all the other differences. I agree on a personal level, but I suspect we're outliers. Can't substantiate that at the moment though, so I might be wrong.

by mercer 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> 2) I'm not sure if our expectations have lowered much. Perhaps it's more that mobile interfaces are generally simpler and thus easier to make 'native enough'? I think people finally called the bluff that users have any expectations. And even if they had, what they don't have is choice. The current market is that everyone is building a walled garden around their selling proposition, so if a company decides to make a web app instead of a native one, then that's all you have. Nobody will make a better one and risk getting sued. If a service doesn't want third party applications, then they won't happen. As you note in your comment, if one sticks with default, "stock" elements in their web app, things look and behave OK on a given platform. But nobody does that, for some reason everyone has to screw this up with tons of CSS and JavaScript that make the whole thing maybe prettier, but also noticeably slower and without all the native idiosyncrasies.

flukus 10y ago

> considering how much more inefficient using HTML/CSS/JS is compared to Java applets. Or is the latter not the case (honest question)? It's a really interesting question actually because it's so hard to compare the two. On any objective measure, today's web apps are much better than applets in terms of responsiveness, etc. But then again, an applet could run on machines with 16MB of RAM total. I think you'd be hard pressed to get plain html page in a modern browser to run on a machine like that. Either way, in both cases we had a much better solution in native apps. > 2. I was never bothered so much by the UI of a java applet looking different. What bothered me was that even very fundamental stuff like input fields and scrolling felt both alien and shittier than native. Modern web apps can score better here, but quite often they don't. The more complex the become the less native they get, scrolling, text input, etc are generally OK (unless your an arshole that overrides scroll behaviour), but html still doesn't have an equivalent for native table views and the goodies (navigation, resizing, performance) that comes with them. For me the skinning does matter though, I have a beautiful, consistent desktop that browsers (not even electron apps) shit all over. When something doesn't look quite right from the second you open it it magnifies all the other differences.

mercer 10y ago
> Modern web apps can score better here, but quite often they don't. The more complex the become the less native they get, scrolling, text input, etc are generally OK (unless your an arshole that overrides scroll behaviour), but html still doesn't have an equivalent for native table views and the goodies (navigation, resizing, performance) that comes with them. Oh yeah, complex UI stuff is definitely a good reason to avoid web apps. But for many, probably even most apps it's precisely scrolling, text input, and other 'basic' stuff that matters, and in those cases a web app's 'default' will be more native. > For me the skinning does matter though, I have a beautiful, consistent desktop that browsers (not even electron apps) shit all over. When something doesn't look quite right from the second you open it it magnifies all the other differences. I agree on a personal level, but I suspect we're outliers. Can't substantiate that at the moment though, so I might be wrong.