4 ms·

The existence of two apps that spent countless man-years implementing their apps to run in the browser doesn't make them a good example. Same goes for VS Code w

The existence of two apps that spent countless man-years implementing their apps to run in the browser doesn't make them a good example. Same goes for VS Code which inevitably comes up in these discussions. Figma literally said they had to build a browser inside the browser: https://www.figma.com/blog/building-a-professional-design-tool-on-the-web/ https://www.figma.com/blog/building-a-professional-design-to...

afavour 4y ago
You’re looking at it from an engineering perspective, I’m looking at it from the user perspective. I’m not saying the web is the technically best platform to implement a native app, I’m saying that users want to use these complex apps on the web. Making a native app that has to be installed is limiting your audience.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  > I’m not saying the web is the technically best platform to implement a native app, I’m saying that users want to use these complex apps on the web. Making a native app that has to be installed is limiting your audience. As someone who has used Figma since it’s inception I’ve always hated the web interface. I like software being it’s own application with its own suite of tools and shortcuts that are only beholden to the OS, not the OS + Browser.
- illiarian 4y ago
  No. What users want is using complex apps that are smooth, fast, support native behaviors (anything from screen readers to system shortcuts) etc. They couldn't care less about the tech behind those apps. Thinking that users "want to use complex apps on the web" is literally what engineers are thinking. And especially in the actual context of the thread my original point still stands.
  - afavour 4y ago
    We can argue until the end of time about what we think users want and it’ll never get anywhere. I’d argue “users crave native experiences” is the engineer thinking. I have friends, family and hundreds of coworkers using Google Docs. No one cares.
    - BlueTemplar 4y ago
      But this is mostly (?) a historically contingent result of Google heavily advertising for Chrome while Microsoft dragged its feet to have an easy to use package manager, sandboxing, maybe flawed (?) rights management for Windows (a Windows Store comes with it's own issues if controlled by Microsoft of course).
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > I’d argue “users crave native experiences” is the engineer thinking. I have friends, family and hundreds of coworkers using Google Docs. No one cares. They care. They just can't put in words that engineers understand. "This is slow", "why can't I copy-paste?", "why is it laggy?", "why does my laptop het up?", "why do I have to wait X seconds for this to open"... All these are "users crave native experiences". On top of that there are power users. Who may not be engineers, but who rely on certain things that exist in the system. From shortcuts (half of which are hijacked by the browser) to offline use to ... On top of that a decade of moving everything to web tech has taught users to expect shittiness. Many don't even know that it shouldn't take 10+ seconds for an app containing nothing to open. And yet, here we are. Especially if it's an "app" on a spotty network connection.
      - afavour 4y ago
        When I say "no-one cares" I don't mean "they complain endlessly but accept it", I mean "they don't complain". They don't find Google Docs slow (nor for the record do I). They are happy with the solution in their hands. Copy and paste on the other hand is a great example of the circular logic at work here: it is an issue and when browsers propose an API to fix the issue everyone throws up their hands and says "clipboard access? in a browser?!?!?" just like they are in this thread with filesystem access. Same with offline access via service workers. So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy: web apps are inferior because they don't have features native apps have... and they shouldn't be allowed to have those features because native apps are superior. So around and around we go with the same old debate, the only losers are the users that want to just get on with things.

afavour 4y ago

You’re looking at it from an engineering perspective, I’m looking at it from the user perspective. I’m not saying the web is the technically best platform to implement a native app, I’m saying that users want to use these complex apps on the web. Making a native app that has to be installed is limiting your audience.

Jcowell 4y ago
> I’m not saying the web is the technically best platform to implement a native app, I’m saying that users want to use these complex apps on the web. Making a native app that has to be installed is limiting your audience. As someone who has used Figma since it’s inception I’ve always hated the web interface. I like software being it’s own application with its own suite of tools and shortcuts that are only beholden to the OS, not the OS + Browser.
illiarian 4y ago
No. What users want is using complex apps that are smooth, fast, support native behaviors (anything from screen readers to system shortcuts) etc. They couldn't care less about the tech behind those apps. Thinking that users "want to use complex apps on the web" is literally what engineers are thinking. And especially in the actual context of the thread my original point still stands.
- afavour 4y ago
  We can argue until the end of time about what we think users want and it’ll never get anywhere. I’d argue “users crave native experiences” is the engineer thinking. I have friends, family and hundreds of coworkers using Google Docs. No one cares.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    But this is mostly (?) a historically contingent result of Google heavily advertising for Chrome while Microsoft dragged its feet to have an easy to use package manager, sandboxing, maybe flawed (?) rights management for Windows (a Windows Store comes with it's own issues if controlled by Microsoft of course).
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > I’d argue “users crave native experiences” is the engineer thinking. I have friends, family and hundreds of coworkers using Google Docs. No one cares. They care. They just can't put in words that engineers understand. "This is slow", "why can't I copy-paste?", "why is it laggy?", "why does my laptop het up?", "why do I have to wait X seconds for this to open"... All these are "users crave native experiences". On top of that there are power users. Who may not be engineers, but who rely on certain things that exist in the system. From shortcuts (half of which are hijacked by the browser) to offline use to ... On top of that a decade of moving everything to web tech has taught users to expect shittiness. Many don't even know that it shouldn't take 10+ seconds for an app containing nothing to open. And yet, here we are. Especially if it's an "app" on a spotty network connection.
    - afavour 4y ago
      When I say "no-one cares" I don't mean "they complain endlessly but accept it", I mean "they don't complain". They don't find Google Docs slow (nor for the record do I). They are happy with the solution in their hands. Copy and paste on the other hand is a great example of the circular logic at work here: it is an issue and when browsers propose an API to fix the issue everyone throws up their hands and says "clipboard access? in a browser?!?!?" just like they are in this thread with filesystem access. Same with offline access via service workers. So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy: web apps are inferior because they don't have features native apps have... and they shouldn't be allowed to have those features because native apps are superior. So around and around we go with the same old debate, the only losers are the users that want to just get on with things.