6 ms·

Given that the project goal is to permit as many people as possible to find these beach entrances isn't it a bit odd to target a total of two platforms for the

Given that the project goal is to permit as many people as possible to find these beach entrances isn't it a bit odd to target a total of two platforms for the application? I'm surprised they aren't doing something this simple with the web. Put another way, isn't accessibility a prime concern for a beach accessibility application?

sequoia 13y ago
> Given that the project goal is to permit as many people as possible to find these beach entrances isn't it a bit odd to target a total of two platforms for the application? What alternative would you suggest? What would meet your criteria of "accessible" for this initiative?
- sa1f 13y ago
  A web app perhaps?
  - sequoia 13y ago
    It's already free information online; if you're online you can already look at it. What would you like the webapp to do? Bear in mind in the interest of accessibility it must not rely on javascript, and there should be an offline as well as a print version to accomodate those with less internet access or no computer.
nobodysfool 13y ago
You can just go here to get the information for free: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf They are just providing a better user experience and advertising, but it is public information and it is free.
- mturmon 13y ago
  And moreover, the person who contributed to making the app was a significant force in getting the document you link to, to be written in the first place. She's been working for a decade on clarifying public accessibility to the Malibu beaches.
- johnbender 13y ago
  I'm asking why the "better user experience" can't be accessible to people without an iPhone or Android device.
  - bostonvaulter2 13y ago
    Probably due to cost. Can't really afford a whole lot of development on just $30k (minus any applicable fees)
    - papsosouid 13y ago
      Which is why a website makes far more sense. You could do it for a couple hundred bucks.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    That gets you ~90% of users right there. Make it cheap to port apps to Windows Phone or Blackberry and I'm sure they will.
  - fancyketchup 13y ago
    Because perfection is the enemy of the "good enough," and iPhone + Android covers an enormous share of the market. Should they support Lynx on SunOS 5, too? No? Why? Because a vanishingly small number of people use that platform.
    - johnbender 13y ago
      The app is simple enough that it seems within the realm of possibility that it would take less time to build it using the web thereby getting support for many more operating systems for free.
    - papsosouid 13y ago
      But that is backwards for this case. They are trying for "perfection" by writing a mobile app so it looks just so and the ui is just the way they want it, when "good enough" would be a simple web site that took a couple hours to make and have online.
rmc 13y ago
Those 2 platforms cover a large percentage of the mobile devices.
- johnbender 13y ago
  Certainly they do, but they don't cover all of them or the people who don't own mobile devices. Again, this is an accessibility issue.
  - sequoia 13y ago
    Are you suggesting a project like this isn't worthwhile unless it cater to "all" mobile devices as well as "people who don't own mobile devices?" This is the perfect as the enemy of the good in spades. Honestly tho, by your standard, 100% of websites and apps are problematically inaccessible, because they don't cater to people with no net access & no phone. Demanding 100% coverage before a tool can be praised is silly. Incidentally, is there any reason you're not filling in the gap here with... what, a mobile site & printed handbills, distributed throughout the city on a regular basis (if even that would meet your desire for accessibility)? :)
    - johnbender 13y ago
      Why is it so hard to imagine building this with web technologies. The app is simple enough and then many more platforms would be supported by default My argument is that there simply isn't any reason to make this a native app and by doing so they are limiting their reach.
      - shiven 13y ago
        Well, then do it. This is HN, creating software to fulfill a need is what (almost) everyone here does / has done. Hence, your argument is not carrying much weight and getting so much pushback. The crowd here expects a "Show HN", more than a "Waanh HN". ;-)
      - sequoia 13y ago
        I hear your argument & it's valid but it's important to not wholly discount image & marketing when choosing a solution, as they also affect how widely used a product is, for better or worse. Apps are "cooler," some people will be more inclined to use it as an app. Again, this isn't a really meaningful reason but it's a real factor and bears consideration. I'm not sure if bookmarking to homescreen is a common workflow for many people. My point is that there's a trade off (I tend to suspect people would use a mobile site less; you have to find it each time etc.) and if you determine that product X would be less accessible, but used by more people, if you implement it using technology Y, it's not unreasonable to accept that compromise. Lest I come of as a grumpy gus that doesn't care about accessibility, I'll link to this PR https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/37 https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/37 which hopefully illustrates that I do care about accessibility, I just recognize that there are other factors when choosing a solution as well and not all will be perfectly accessible, for better or worse.
cookiecaper 13y ago
One justification may be that it's much simpler to both obtain and display helpful location data as a native application than a web page.
- johnbender 13y ago
  I'm not sure about obtaining location information (ie, I don't know about geo api support) but "maps on the web" are extremely robust.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    For someone on a PC. Mobile users have much more difficulty utilizing the generic web-based maps than the native, platform-optimized and integrated mapping application. There are ways to attempt to make it work in both directions, but it's extra complexity. For an app that is heavily location-centric and meant to help you find obscure walking paths while you're walking around the area, it's reasonable to have non-native support as a secondary goal.

sequoia 13y ago

> Given that the project goal is to permit as many people as possible to find these beach entrances isn't it a bit odd to target a total of two platforms for the application? What alternative would you suggest? What would meet your criteria of "accessible" for this initiative?

sa1f 13y ago
A web app perhaps?
- sequoia 13y ago
  It's already free information online; if you're online you can already look at it. What would you like the webapp to do? Bear in mind in the interest of accessibility it must not rely on javascript, and there should be an offline as well as a print version to accomodate those with less internet access or no computer.

nobodysfool 13y ago

You can just go here to get the information for free: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/BroadBeachCoastalAccess.pdf They are just providing a better user experience and advertising, but it is public information and it is free.

mturmon 13y ago
And moreover, the person who contributed to making the app was a significant force in getting the document you link to, to be written in the first place. She's been working for a decade on clarifying public accessibility to the Malibu beaches.
johnbender 13y ago
I'm asking why the "better user experience" can't be accessible to people without an iPhone or Android device.
- bostonvaulter2 13y ago
  Probably due to cost. Can't really afford a whole lot of development on just $30k (minus any applicable fees)
  - papsosouid 13y ago
    Which is why a website makes far more sense. You could do it for a couple hundred bucks.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  That gets you ~90% of users right there. Make it cheap to port apps to Windows Phone or Blackberry and I'm sure they will.
- fancyketchup 13y ago
  Because perfection is the enemy of the "good enough," and iPhone + Android covers an enormous share of the market. Should they support Lynx on SunOS 5, too? No? Why? Because a vanishingly small number of people use that platform.
  - johnbender 13y ago
    The app is simple enough that it seems within the realm of possibility that it would take less time to build it using the web thereby getting support for many more operating systems for free.
  - papsosouid 13y ago
    But that is backwards for this case. They are trying for "perfection" by writing a mobile app so it looks just so and the ui is just the way they want it, when "good enough" would be a simple web site that took a couple hours to make and have online.

rmc 13y ago

Those 2 platforms cover a large percentage of the mobile devices.

johnbender 13y ago
Certainly they do, but they don't cover all of them or the people who don't own mobile devices. Again, this is an accessibility issue.
- sequoia 13y ago
  Are you suggesting a project like this isn't worthwhile unless it cater to "all" mobile devices as well as "people who don't own mobile devices?" This is the perfect as the enemy of the good in spades. Honestly tho, by your standard, 100% of websites and apps are problematically inaccessible, because they don't cater to people with no net access & no phone. Demanding 100% coverage before a tool can be praised is silly. Incidentally, is there any reason you're not filling in the gap here with... what, a mobile site & printed handbills, distributed throughout the city on a regular basis (if even that would meet your desire for accessibility)? :)
  - johnbender 13y ago
    Why is it so hard to imagine building this with web technologies. The app is simple enough and then many more platforms would be supported by default My argument is that there simply isn't any reason to make this a native app and by doing so they are limiting their reach.
    - shiven 13y ago
      Well, then do it. This is HN, creating software to fulfill a need is what (almost) everyone here does / has done. Hence, your argument is not carrying much weight and getting so much pushback. The crowd here expects a "Show HN", more than a "Waanh HN". ;-)
    - sequoia 13y ago
      I hear your argument & it's valid but it's important to not wholly discount image & marketing when choosing a solution, as they also affect how widely used a product is, for better or worse. Apps are "cooler," some people will be more inclined to use it as an app. Again, this isn't a really meaningful reason but it's a real factor and bears consideration. I'm not sure if bookmarking to homescreen is a common workflow for many people. My point is that there's a trade off (I tend to suspect people would use a mobile site less; you have to find it each time etc.) and if you determine that product X would be less accessible, but used by more people, if you implement it using technology Y, it's not unreasonable to accept that compromise. Lest I come of as a grumpy gus that doesn't care about accessibility, I'll link to this PR https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/37 https://github.com/tastejs/todomvc/pull/37 which hopefully illustrates that I do care about accessibility, I just recognize that there are other factors when choosing a solution as well and not all will be perfectly accessible, for better or worse.

cookiecaper 13y ago

One justification may be that it's much simpler to both obtain and display helpful location data as a native application than a web page.

johnbender 13y ago
I'm not sure about obtaining location information (ie, I don't know about geo api support) but "maps on the web" are extremely robust.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  For someone on a PC. Mobile users have much more difficulty utilizing the generic web-based maps than the native, platform-optimized and integrated mapping application. There are ways to attempt to make it work in both directions, but it's extra complexity. For an app that is heavily location-centric and meant to help you find obscure walking paths while you're walking around the area, it's reasonable to have non-native support as a secondary goal.