Offline first web development.

[BenPleysier]

A few years back, the buzz word was 'mobile first' accentuating the fact that mobile use was rising exponentially. Has this now been replaced by 'offline first'?

Reading articles like Offline-first web and mobile apps: Top frameworks and components | TechBeacon and viewing Going Big: PWAs Come to Desktop and Chrome OS (Google I/O ’19) - YouTube​, it looks like we should start to embrace HTTPS, manifest files and service workers with more to come. Maybe this will give us 'professionals' the edge over the likes of wix - lost my second customer in as many months to a wixer.

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

osgood_   a écrit

What is true, I am opposed to using such technologies where they actually don't really work that well and nothing has been considered, or worse so called 'know-alls' trying to teach ridiculous uses for such applications/technologies....but hey that's the way of the world these days - very few have the intelligence to actually sit down and really consdider anything.

it reminds me of the positioning contrasts we already had in the second half of the 90s with the 'tabless' approach to our layouts. those who were already moving towards their implementation and those who were preserving their achievements with nested tables and the famous shim.gif...

Not a good comparrison really. Replacing tables with divs, flex with float etc doesn't fail, unlike PWA which fails dreadfully in a lot of situation, especailly where a website uses a lot of dynamic information. However if a client requests it you must be prepared to implement it. Could I recommend it to a client, only in certain situation, which mainly involved static information. I really don't see a purpose of an offline app, which in a lot of instance IF you have not visited a page so its not cached you just replacing that page with a pretty messsge 'You need to be connected to the internet to view this page' Its an elaborate way of negating the default 'not connected to the internet page' situation, which looks pretty ugly, but beyond that Im not convinced of any real benefit other than 'its available so lets have it'.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

Let's not forget that today the recommendations of use of the PWAs approach are in the pipe since 6 years https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-appmanifest-20131217/... and that stuffs go faster in our days than by the past... so missing the train is somehow easiest than ever...

Well it only recently became possible in modern browsers and 4/5 years ago most where probably still supporting IE, not to mention there has been a recent push to https for almost anysite which as you know must be deployed for a 'service worker' to function.

I dare say it will gain traction over the next few years and I'll be ready and waiting to  implement a request fromn a client, its not that difficult to code  and Google 'Workbox' if you choose to go down that particular route, is supposed to take a lot of the complexities away but as yet Im to be convinced of any real benefits, plus you say you work with customers that use the web everyday, so that in itself some what negates the need for PWAs.

If users are in a tunnel and dis-connected, its a sad reflection of todays society that they cant wait a minute or 2 to be re-connected BUT hey how many poeple do you see walking around these days with a phone glued to their ear 24/7. I wouldn't be surpirised if in a couple of generations humans started growing antenne

[B i r n o u]

osgood_  a écrit

Not a good comparrison really. Replacing tables with divs, flex with float etc doesn't fail, unlike PWA which fails dreadfully in a lot of situation, especailly where a website uses a lot of dynamic information.

probably you don't remember how CSS was rendered and frightened developers during the first years of their appearance....

where browsers did not correctly implement CSS... the layout was catastrophic

it took years for the developers left the table layout.

osgood_  a écrit

Could I recommend it to a client, only in certain situation, which mainly involved static information. I really don't see a purpose of an offline app, which in a lot of instance IF you have not visited a page so its not cached you just replacing that page with a pretty messsge 'You need to be connected to the internet to view this page' Its an elaborate way of negating the default 'not connected to the internet page' situation, which looks pretty ugly, but beyond that Im not convinced of any real benefit other than 'its available so lets have it'.

reducing PWA to only offline context is not really understanding what PWA is...

then, I would say that taking as an example a website with a static context... is really an interesting example.... it dates back to the HTML2.1 era no?... so funny....

I don't remember the last site I had to do statically... maybe it was a printed documentation... but even the PDFs I build (especially for health) are dynamic...

we really don't have the same type of clientele... and in fact, it helps me to better understand your points of view.

osgood_  a écrit

Well it only recently became possible in modern browsers and 4/5 years ago most where probably still supporting IE, not to mention there has been a recent push to https for almost anysite which as you know must be deployed for a 'service worker' to function.

the missing point is that if the browser doesn't get the API... PWA still display correctly... because it's simply a web site ... and progressivly can become and benefit from being a true application. 

that's why yesterday I said... who can do the most... can do the least

osgood_  a écrit

If users are in a tunnel and dis-connected, its a sad reflection of todays society that they cant wait a minute or 2 to be re-connected BUT hey how many poeple do you see walking around these days with a phone glued to their ear 24/7.

perhaps simply because you never use public transport to go to work.... 100% of my customers do it

osgood_  a écrit

I wouldn't be surpirised if in a couple of generations humans started growing antenne

this era already has a name... we call it the internet of things...

well now it's swimming pool time... with friends and family...

see you later...

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

osgood_   a écrit

Not a good comparrison really. Replacing tables with divs, flex with float etc doesn't fail, unlike PWA which fails dreadfully in a lot of situation, especailly where a website uses a lot of dynamic information.

probably you don't remember how CSS was rendered and frightened developers during the first years of their appearance....

where browsers did not correctly implement CSS... the layout was catastrophic

it took years for the developers left the table layout.

Sure I do. I was solving css issues in Mac IE5 when others were failing. Its up to the developer to move on IF they feel a workflow will be beneficial to their circumstances. Those that didnt persisted with tables long after  - same as flex, it was stable for a good 2 years before those using Bootstrap 3 would admit that because they were being held back by flex not being available in v3. The difference is it worked 100%, there was no weaknesses or potential failures once it was adopted by the major browsers.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

osgood_   a écrit

Could I recommend it to a client, only in certain situation, which mainly involved static information. I really don't see a purpose of an offline app, which in a lot of instance IF you have not visited a page so its not cached you just replacing that page with a pretty messsge 'You need to be connected to the internet to view this page' Its an elaborate way of negating the default 'not connected to the internet page' situation, which looks pretty ugly, but beyond that Im not convinced of any real benefit other than 'its available so lets have it'.

reducing PWA to only offline context is not really understanding what PWA is...

then, I would say that taking as an example a website with a static context... is really an interesting example.... it dates back to the HTML2.1 era no?... so funny....

I don't remember the last site I had to do statically... maybe it was a printed documentation... but even the PDFs I build (especially for health) are dynamic...

we really don't have the same type of clientele... and in fact, it helps me to better understand your points of view.

Well hell yes so what use is it. No one produces a static site any longer but a dynamic concept which requires pages to be kept regularly updated doesnt work in PWA, now that is what is really funny.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

osgood_   a écrit

Well it only recently became possible in modern browsers and 4/5 years ago most where probably still supporting IE, not to mention there has been a recent push to https for almost anysite which as you know must be deployed for a 'service worker' to function.

the missing point is that if the browser doesn't get the API... PWA still display correctly... because it's simply a web site ... and progressivly can become and benefit from being a true application. 

that's why yesterday I said... who can do the most... can do the least

.

A PWA wont display correctly, at least not the pages you havent visted, now how many pages could that be in a dynamic website? Its what you call a half-assed solution.

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

osgood_   a écrit

If users are in a tunnel and dis-connected, its a sad reflection of todays society that they cant wait a minute or 2 to be re-connected BUT hey how many poeple do you see walking around these days with a phone glued to their ear 24/7.

perhaps simply because you never use public transport to go to work.... 100% of my customers do it

Its a sad, sick world we live in today, thats something I think we can agree on, people who can't be dis-connected for more that a minute otherwise they fall into some deep depression, quite ridiculous.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

osgood_   a écrit

I wouldn't be surpirised if in a couple of generations humans started growing antenne

this era already has a name... we call it the internet of things...

well now it's swimming pool time... with friends and family...

see you later...

Enjoy your dip, dont forget to take you phone, Im sure you'll suffer some kind of anxiety attack if youre parted from it for too long

[B i r n o u]

osgood_  a écrit

Enjoy your dip, dont forget to take you phone, Im sure you'll suffer some kind of anxiety attack if youre parted from it for too long

Thank you for your wishes, in fact the weather got cloudy, and as a result the swimming was transformed into a woodcarving workshop and preparation of a mega "Rouille à la Sétoise"... https://www.tourisme-sete.com/recette-rouille-seiche.html

Get an idea of my phone, https://cdn.pji.nu/product/standard/280/540236.jpg, but I confess it's a new one... the old one I had was no longer holding the charge after 10+ years of loyal services

[pziecina]

Quote -

If users are in a tunnel and dis-connected, its a sad reflection of todays society that they cant wait a minute or 2 to be re-connected BUT hey how many poeple do you see walking around these days with a phone glued to their ear 24/7. I wouldn't be surpirised if in a couple of generations humans started growing antenne

end quote.

Correct me if I am wrong Os, but in general you are building sites for use within 50 miles of your location?

What would happen, and how would you proceed, if your sites must function anywhere in the world, with a reliable internet connection only available in your hotel/home, and at best a sparodic and slow connection available for anywhere more than 5 miles outside major centeres?

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Correct me if I am wrong Os, but in general you are building sites for use within 50 miles of your location?

You are corrected, most of the websites that I produce are Nationwide. I think I only have maybe 4/5 that are within a 50 mile radius of my location.

pziecina  wrote

What would happen, and how would you proceed, if your sites must function anywhere in the world, with a reliable internet connection only available in your hotel/home, and at best a sparodic and slow connection available for anywhere more than 5 miles outside major centeres?

This still doesnt really make PWA 100% perfect. The fact is IF a page hasnt been visited it wont get cached. Now would I rather piss my users off by serving up page after page of 'Sorry you need to be connected to the internet to view this specific page' or would I rather just be honest and say 'No Internet connection, you cant view thsi website'. Currently I think the latter, as I see no point in delivering a half working concept, which most user wont understand why they can access some pages an not others.

Even static page are vulnerable because as I say a PWA concept relies on a page being visted and cached. Its poor parctice to cache all the pages on a static site unlesss the site was very small of course and thats just maybe where a PWA has some greater benefits

[pziecina]

That's just it, a badly thought out PWA is one that simply caches all the info. A well thought out one allows the user to decide what/which info they wish to have usable offline.

Lets say you have a product catalogue, this may contain thousands of products in different categories, but the user only requires 2 of the 100+ categories products to be listed when offline. If you as the developer allow the user to select only those 2 categories then the info they require, (for whatever purpose) will be available no matter what happens.

You should however also include info on related, (or necessary additions) items, as it is no use including various components, (products) if you do not include the required items to fit it, (eg - a replacement electronic 'black box' for a car/auto, is no use without the bolts, etc to fit it).

PWA's and how they work, probably requires more time to plan than a traditional dynamic site, simply because one has to think of the best method(s) and the user requirements to make the info available when offline.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

That's just it, a badly thought out PWA is one that simply caches all the info. A well thought out one allows the user to decide what/which info they wish to have usable offline.

Lets say you have a product catalogue, this may contain thousands of products in different categories, but the user only requires 2 of the 100+ categories products to be listed when offline. If you as the developer allow the user to select only those 2 categories then the info they require, (for whatever purpose) will be available no matter what happens.

But that's not how it works in reality. If you have a select list of those categories, the select list will always be available for the user to choose from. They may think they can choose anything from that list 'offline' and see the corresponding page, which isnt going to happen. You would somehow have to serve up only the 2 categories in the select list so they could only choose from those and only the pages that they have visted, which means you would have to to alter the main navigation code and any links/code that was unapplicable to the PWA.

pziecina  wrote

PWA's and how they work, probably requires more time to plan than a traditional dynamic site, simply because one has to think of the best method(s) and the user requirements to make the info available when offline.

Well hell yes, when you start looking into it, its rewriting most of the code to make anything sensible appear at the uers end unless of course you want a half-baked solution, which I thjink most are going to be, yet just wont admit it.

[pziecina]

A PWA should work offline with the selected categories only being displayed, and any product info must be displayed as though the site was complete. If you like think of it as being a site within a site, with the sub site working as though it was the complete site.

Also just like any on-line site, the user should be informed of an expiry date for the product, (or offline) details if appropriate.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

A PWA should work offline with the selected categories only being displayed, and any product info must be displayed as though the site was complete. If you like think of it as being a site within a site, with the sub site working as though it was the complete site.

I agree but that is probably easier said than done and certainly would require a lot of additonal work which would require a large budget and the benefits may not be worth it.

[pziecina]

BTW,

How I think a PDA should work, and what for. Is why I don't think they are of use to most sites. There is little point in creating one if it is not necessary, as it then becomes a 'selling feature' without any real purpose.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

BTW,

How I think a PDA should work, and what for. Is why I don't think they are of use to most sites. There is little point in creating one if it is not necessary, as it then becomes a 'selling feature' without any real purpose.

For sure, its exciting but less so when you start to realise the weaknesses/limitations and how useful they really are if you want to avoid delivering what could potentailly be a confusing unfinished mess. I doubt many developers will even consider it too critically and just deploy solutions which half work - some say that's better than nothing. I'm currently in the other camp.

[BenPleysier]

pziecina  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u   wrote

....

all this research was systematically put end to end in the development of applications that happened simultaneously here at the office... until the end of PWA was one day dropped

I know of a number of developers who have stopped developing PWA's, as seperate apps and moved back to browser based web apps as part of the overall site strategy.

I think it was one of the phonegap developers who once said, that the idea behing phonegap was that one day browsers would catch up, and phonegap would no longer be required.

There are good reasons to have mobile apps, security being the main one. These are device dependant and can only be downloaded from an app store. Can be used without an internet connection although the data may not be up to date

There are good reasons to have a web app, flexibility and ease of maintenance being some of them. As B i r n o u​ has said, a web app is accessed through the browser; installation or app stores are not required. Cannot be used without an internet connection. Trying ill get me:

Progressive Web Apps are no more than Web Apps with the addition of Service Workers. This allows the website to continue working as specified by the owner of the website. Going to Pinterest off-line, I get

Even for small businesses I think that PWA is a nice touch, the user can always find the business even though the internet connection has failed.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

I was replying to your comment in post #12, in which you said -

"it seems to me that if there is a customer leak it is only a matter of cost."

I'm now paying the client and so far I have 100% no leakage - everyone should try the concept

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Hi Birnou,

The point was that if all a client or end user gets is a one size fits all, (the mini) solution, then they are not going to pay the price of a rolls-royce.

Yeah, its hard work. This bloke should go and learn some English if he wants to participate in a predominately English speaking forum. I'm getting a little pissed with his continuous mis-interpretation of what everyone is saying.

[pziecina]

Actually Os, I am getting a little suspicious, (or is it paranoid) that this discussion is a part of another 'private' discussion. Especially given Bens comment in the html5 pack for CS5, and his lack of comments here.

quote-

HARSHIKA VERMA, I'm keeping my emotions to myself this time

As I have no idea what Ben is referring to in that discussion.

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2628343

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

Actually Os, I am getting a little suspicious, (or is it paranoid) that this discussion is a part of another 'private' discussion. Especially given Bens comment in the html5 pack for CS5, and his lack of comments here.

quote-

https://forums.adobe.com/people/HARSHIKA+VERMA , I'm keeping my emotions to myself this time

As I have no idea what Ben is referring to in that discussion.

Dreamweaver CS5 HTML5 Pack.

Hi Paula,

No idea as I don't use DW extensions or DW but its no secret the frustration of many long-time users of DW who feel Adobe aren't exactly listening. I guess if you are continuing to witness a progam you have used for a long time fall from grace it must be kind of upsetting, maybe that's the 'emotions' Ben is refering to. I can't see its a big deal as he has found another solution unless........

[B i r n o u]

osgood_  a écrit

Yeah, its hard work. This bloke should go and learn some English if he wants to participate in a predominately English speaking forum. I'm getting a little pissed with his continuous mis-interpretation of what everyone is saying.

why address a third person in this way, without saying a word to me... because it concerns me

what you say and how you say it is insulting........

who are you to talk like that?

try to speak French as I try to speak English, so you could probably understand what it means to speak complex concepts in a foreign language

if from what you say, I have to refrain from intervening because I don't speak or understand English properly... it's a denial of accessibility... thank you for your sectarianism

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

osgood_   a écrit

Yeah, its hard work. This bloke should go and learn some English if he wants to participate in a predominately English speaking forum. I'm getting a little pissed with his continuous mis-interpretation of what everyone is saying.

why address a third person in this way, without saying a word to me... because it concerns me

what you say and how you say it is insulting........

who are you to talk like that?

try to speak French as I try to speak English, so you could probably understand what it means to speak complex concepts in a foreign language

if from what you say, I have to refrain from intervening because I don't speak or understand English properly... it's a denial of accessibility... thank you for your sectarianism

If I could not speak fluent French I wouldnt go into a French speaking forum, that would be rather silly. I'm not denying you access, just dont reply to my posts IF you dont understand them as you clearly don't most of the time, its getting a little tedious. Maybe others are more tolerant.

[B i r n o u]

I don't want to be arrogant, insulting or hurtful...

so excuse me if I do it wrong and if I misspell my sentences... let's keep it basic... and elementary on the facts.

you advise me not to speak to you anymore because I speak poor English and don't understand words of what you say?

this is not the first time this kind of phrase from you has been addressed to me.

I just realized that this happens every time we talk about technologies that you don't use. and I have to say that I don't understand English well, but every time you make fun of people who use this kind of technology, and their customers are being treated as cash-cows... or such developers hide their ignorance behind a whole bunch of complicated concepts and APIs for not much

my question is simple...

have you personnaly already explored these technologies, (apart from the hello world examples) have you used them in production, have you experimented enough to have a coherent and objective feedback?

personally I get involved with a lot of working group around chrome, w3c and android... the language is unfortunately English in these forums... do you think I should retire? and learn English first...

or learning these technos can help you to see things more clearly... by knowing how to question yourself... sometimes...

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

I just realized that this happens every time we talk about technologies that you don't use. and I have to say that I don't understand English well, but every time you make fun of people who use this kind of technology, and their customers are being treated as cash-cows... or such developers hide their ignorance behind a whole bunch of complicated concepts and APIs for not much

Its not exactly like that. You seem to have a focused view of what a post is/should be about and miss some parts of a post that may be more interesting to another reader of the post. For instance in this post Ben 'loosely complained' about loosing work to Wix and yet he uses a similar workflow - Wappler so I thought it relevant to address that point.

Again I wasn't addressing a particular technology, some which seem to me overly complicated for the kind of work they are being deployed for. You cant deny that most of these technologies are first initiated by players such as facebook, twitter, etc. They then feed down through to small developers, who have read about them, seen some tutorials on youtube, who are knocking out websites for high end companies like grannies cotton reels that perhaps at best has 300 hits a week, yet deploying say vue cli or node js, build files, etc which I personally find insane.

From my point of view it seems developers are trying to find more and more complex workflows to produce a website which is quite ordinary. Maybe this is as a response to 'anyone' can build a website but not like this. No one has ever responded to my question about vue js cli. It wraps all the components up in a js file which then builds the website at runtime. I question this as a means of producing a website in terms of what is good for the client, not the developer. Can any developer then go and take that js file down and  reverse engineer it so they can update the website for the client or do they require the original build files.

I look at pretty much everything from a client point of view and providing them with what I feel is a portable website so they are NOT tied to me or my workflow in any way shape or form, that is why I use main-stream approaches which a good developer should understand, not some niche workflow which even a good developer wont understand. I dont think as developers we think enough about what is good for the client but about what is good for us but again that may be out of desperation in trying to make a living in anyway they can, but it doesnt make it a professional or correct approach.

[B i r n o u]

once again you are going into a development around your working method, that is a fact, and in that I respect it... but it blacks the fish and moves away from the heart of all that

the technos that were addressed by the initial question, do not come from tweeters, facebooks or other types of libraries... the technos concerning the PWA are pure standards of the w3c

https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/

so in summary... in order to be competitive with what is done free online (with the addition of a small extension) the question was... Can't DW revolve around that?

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

so in summary... in order to be competitive with what is done free online (with the addition of a small extension) the question was... Can't DW revolve around that?

Wouldnt it be nice but there is a slight problem if you havent already noticed......Adobe is NOT for listening.

As I said I dont really know why we continue to discuss the fate or direction of DW, its already been sealed. To compete it would not even be called DW any longer as its got a really bad reputation, at least amongst profession developers, a newer program would have to be developed and I personally cant see that happening, given the competition, who are doing it better.

[B i r n o u]

osgood_  a écrit

Wouldnt it be nice but there is a slight problem if you havent already noticed......Adobe is NOT for listening.

As I said I dont really know why we continue to discuss the fate or direction of DW, its already been sealed. To compete it would not even be called DW any longer as its got a really bad reputation, at least amongst profession developers, a newer program would have to be developed and I personally cant see that happening, given the competition, who are doing it better.

isn't that the answer that, in my opinion, should have been given at the beginning of this discussion, and not to get into controversy about the economic model and translation model between users and any other controversies ?