2 ms·

Between Qt, Swing, and even SWT's attempt to expose native widgets, you'd think that it would be well established that emulating native components (especially b

by nupark2 15y ago

Between Qt, Swing, and even SWT's attempt to expose native widgets, you'd think that it would be well established that emulating native components (especially behind a generic API) never produces a result on-par with an application written against the real native APIs. I just quickly tested the Sencha demo on an iPad 1. In terms of just the scrolling, Sencha Touch seems unable to implement glassy-smooth scrolling of a simple text-only list view -- something that was achievable on the original non-3G iPhone. On top of that, their UI looks like a poor clone of Apple's, is slow to respond to interaction events, implements jerky-at-best animations. In short, it is obviously non-native, to the detriment of the user experience; it performs poorly, provides a lesser user-experience, uses non-default widgets, and will constantly be playing catch-up with the native APIs and UI.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Emulating native UI is definitely the wrong approach; it only highlights your apps weaknesses. However I think you're overstating the important of things like scrolling inertia; users do not mind this too much. It's shown by the fact that they all choose "inferior" experiences on the desktop when they log into their Yahoo Mail and Hotmail account; or worse, just use pop3. Users will choose a solution 1) That they know about, 2) that meets their needs, 3) that is easiest. UX is probably 4th. Trivialities like page transitions and scrolling inertia only matters to the SXSW crowd.
- nupark2 15y ago
  Trivialities like page transitions and scrolling inertia only matters to the SXSW crowd. Scrolling inertia is about utility -- being able to easily flick through a long list (such as Netflix's movies). It's a real, intentional user experience feature, not just some easily dismissed "SXSW crowd" aesthetic. That said, I agree that foremost, users choose products that solve their problems. However, that doesn't mean that a quality native application isn't a significant competitive advantage. If there are two products that solve their problems equally, they'll choose the one with the best user experience. If users are choosing a product with a lesser user experience, chances are good that the competition with a seemingly better UX isn't actually solving their problems.

by nupark2 15y ago

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

Emulating native UI is definitely the wrong approach; it only highlights your apps weaknesses. However I think you're overstating the important of things like scrolling inertia; users do not mind this too much. It's shown by the fact that they all choose "inferior" experiences on the desktop when they log into their Yahoo Mail and Hotmail account; or worse, just use pop3. Users will choose a solution 1) That they know about, 2) that meets their needs, 3) that is easiest. UX is probably 4th. Trivialities like page transitions and scrolling inertia only matters to the SXSW crowd.

nupark2 15y ago
Trivialities like page transitions and scrolling inertia only matters to the SXSW crowd. Scrolling inertia is about utility -- being able to easily flick through a long list (such as Netflix's movies). It's a real, intentional user experience feature, not just some easily dismissed "SXSW crowd" aesthetic. That said, I agree that foremost, users choose products that solve their problems. However, that doesn't mean that a quality native application isn't a significant competitive advantage. If there are two products that solve their problems equally, they'll choose the one with the best user experience. If users are choosing a product with a lesser user experience, chances are good that the competition with a seemingly better UX isn't actually solving their problems.