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 Has this now been replaced by 'offline first'?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.

[pziecina]

I'm going to 'promote' a slightly different reason for, (or against) the offline browser based web app/site.

In the app I was part of, offline was an essential feature, but I'm not certain if it would be relevant in many circumstances beyond having the location of a small buisness 'stored' in a browser for viewing when offline. My reason for saying that, is that although a technical or commerce browser based app, often requires the information be stored for the user when offline, but a small buisness that depends on 'footfall' rather than online requirerments, would only have an essential of allowing the user to physicaly locate the business.

Maybe I'm looking at small business requirements from a large organisation/commercial viewpoint though. As I admit my experiance with small or even medium sized sites is almost none existant in the last 10 years.

[pziecina]

Before I forget. I did discuss the future requierments of offline usage, with Scott, (a long time ago) just after the release of CS5, and a number of proplems when creating them, (and possible solutions) in a very old now discussion in this forum.

At the time many, (so called experts) people said it was not required as html5 etc would not be usable untill the 2020's, (Scott did disagree with that view) but what happened in Adobe/Dw managment regarding the problems/solutions presented I obviously have no idea, and Scott left Adobe after CS6.

[B i r n o u]

unlike Paula ( ), Ben I share your point of view and I find your remark very relevant.

whatever the size of the company, and whatever the nature of the website, the fact that on the one hand it is possible to manage the caching in a very fine way is something that makes the usability of the application much more flexible.

and on the other hand, being able to orient the heavy mechanisms on parallel threads is an almost unavoidable necessity. Many processes can block the loading and painting flexibility of the pages

thanks for both links I have seen them before... I will prepare a snack, lie down on a deckchair (the sun is still only shy for the moment, and so take advantage of this ephemeral freshness to project them on the terrace.... thanks

[B i r n o u]

Wow... I couldn't watch the conference, the guy who talks is too stuck, reads his text below, and gives a discomfort of listening...

but thanks anyway for the link Ben, it clearly specifies the direction that the development must take and it confirms in every way your message #1

Too bad no one from Adobe listens here... and reads these messages

[osgood_]

I did investigate this once and its useless for anything you want to keep up-to-date on a daily basis as its always outdated information. Im sure its good for something - information which rarely changes I would assume.

I think the tendency would be to assume the app information is always up-to-date which is potentially dangerous. As Paula suggests basic 'static' information works fine but anything critical just doesnt get pushed to the app until the user reconnects.

[B i r n o u]

nope, it's made for... it handles the data refresh, the worker in which you work, and all the control of the files

but

I think that one should not reduce the PWA to only the offline aspect of the application needs, but all the peripherical ones as (just some of them) access to os integration, fetch API, push and ntework notification and so on...

As Ben I think that as by the past one was calling for Mobile First one should greatly promote the PWA way. Anyway, Any way, and as usual, it's just a point of view any one is still free to act and code the way he or she likes...

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

Maybe this will give us 'professionals' the edge over the likes of wix - lost my second customer in as many months to a wixer.

Oh well you're part of the problem not the answer, being a Wappler user. Reap what you sow in the kindest possible way I just keep doing what I do and hope that there are enough sensible clients out there that appreciate knowledge and skill. Infact I dont really care these days, it is what it is and at this late stage of my career it all really makes little difference to me personally but I'm going to continue to fight for the 'professional' corner as much as I think it a lost cause at the lower-end of the market.

[B i r n o u]

with all due respect, and by placing as much care as necessary due to the barrier of cultures and language....

we are not talking here about a way of developing, nor about an approach that is professional or amateur...

what are we talking about here?

we are talking about the fact that more and more users use mobile devices to consult the web, and the web in general... certainly the web still has a lot of text and image, but whether you like it or not, it is becoming more and more applicative, interconnected (between the device and other networks), and this mobility necessarily generates movements that cross connection and/or bandwidth losses

Moreover, typing a URL with the thumb is much less practical than an icon on the desktop... and a full screen remains whether or not you want to be more ergonomic than just one tab among many others in an application...

users themselves... don't care what this type of application is called, or what language the developer used, let alone whether it's a professional or amateur or other technology we're talking about...

what he wants is the result, the efficiency, the user experience that is at the maximum of his habits, and that he does not have to wonder if he has to share the link, save a favorite (ooh... the old words... ) send it on another network, follow it, be informed of an update....

that's what we're starting to talk about with Ben.

[osgood_]

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

that's what we're starting to talk about with Ben.

Unless you are choosing to selectively ignore what was said - this is what Ben INCLUDED in his post, which I chose to answer:

'Maybe this will give us 'professionals' the edge over the likes of wix - lost my second customer in as many months to a wixer.'

But as is becoming typical you choose to answer something completely irrelevant to what I responded to, which I persoanally found most interesting in his post, considering Ben uses, what some may consider a Wix type approach.

[pziecina]

The problem of clients moving to quick and cheap site builders is probably just, (or even more) as important a question, as the inclusion of offline content.

Without more info from Ben, the reasons he is loosing clients to wix and other web presence solutions, can only be guessed at. That said there is a tendancy now for developers to over complicate things, (from workflows to code) without knowing just what the client and end user actually requires.

I asked a question a few months ago, about features, (how they look and work) in web sites, with the general opinion being that they will not evolve any further, unless there is a radical shift brought about by 'outside' influences, (be that browser or devices).

If that general opinion is true, then all anyone neads to do these days is include popular features. Which can be done by anyone, even those with no skill. The layout itself just requires looking at sites one likes.

So the question of loosing clients becomes one of, 'what can developers offer', after all, if all one gets is a mini, no one will pay for a rolls-royce.

[B i r n o u]

pziecina  a écrit

So the question of loosing clients becomes one of, 'what can developers offer', after all, if all one gets is a mini, no one will pay for a rolls-royce.

I'm certainly miss your point but does this can be a start for an answer ?

Instant Mobile App Overview | WIX App Market | Wix.com

[pziecina]

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.

To me the lower end of web development, (static or cms) does not appear offer the client or end user anything more than they are now able to do themselves, or with the help of an advisor, (from wix or anyone else).

Looking to offer extras such as offline viewing, will not answer the real question of why those building sites/apps for small buisnesses are loosing clients.

[B i r n o u]

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

of course if online applications and mostly free applications on the one hand, and developers on the other hand (we are talking about DW) developpers that do not have access to tools that would integrate the necessary package... then it becomes difficult to compete.

this brings you back to your question from another thread, where you wanted to address the wishlist that you should approach a new DW....

Ben brings you some... don't sweep them under the rug by invoking the economic model of companies and the problems of the project owner

[pziecina]

There is a bottom limit to cost that if one crossed it, it becomes un-economical to produce a product. So cutting costs is not the solution, and no client is going to pay for something that they can produce themselves.

As for the other thread, no one from Adobe is interested, and adding features to Dw will never solve the problem of client expectations. What it would solve is what a developer can offer clients when web development features are included in Dw.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

There is a bottom limit to cost that if one crossed it, it becomes un-economical to produce a product. So cutting costs is not the solution, and no client is going to pay for something that they can produce themselves.

How low can you go. I've said it and you've said it - web-development isn't in good shape on account of all these new automated approaches and overly-complex workflows. Automated process are only profitable for the developers of such products and they dont give a jot about the developer or the 'hooky' workflow they use, so long as the product makes money.

There is now a deep divide - those desperately trying to block out the unskilled by using over-complex workflows to produce the simplest of jobs (basiclaly trying to convince themselves its still a skilled job at the bottom level and even more laughable trying to convince clients these overly complex workflows are truly necessary) and those using cheap and cheeful automated processes which means they have to knock out multiple websites to make any sensible money.

Its become a poor situation for all UNLESS you have something very, very special in terms of skill to offer these days.

[pziecina]

I agree, but to return to  offline usable sites/apps, a lot has not been said.

If it was to be included in Dw, for easy incorporation then does anyone really think that offerings like wix will not include such a feature? Making something easy to do will never solve the problem of loosing clients, simply because cheap and quick solutions, cannot offer clients anything more than what a 'self build' solution cannot.

Also to include such a feature, it is not a single api that developers have to use, but many other features, (not just code) that Dw would require. Even something as simple as offline database crud is not so simple to do in Dw.

[B i r n o u]

pziecina  a écrit

There is a bottom limit to cost that if one crossed it, it becomes un-economical to produce a product. So cutting costs is not the solution, and no client is going to pay for something that they can produce themselves.

why are you talking about cost for client... Ben was just proposing to think PWA first... as we did few years ago with mobile first...

... because dont be blind... web development turn more and more on that side....

it's like when you, Paula, was talking about adding css3, html5... and it's like when I was asking to add API and a debuger in DW... no much not less... no one was talking about cost for client at that time...

so please stay focus on WPA ...

[pziecina]

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."

[B i r n o u]

pziecina  a écrit

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."

yes..... why would a customer go and pay for something that is cheaper at wix with the purchase of an extension to get his app on a mobile when a developer using DW can't do it

so the fact is that if DW integrated a way to build a PWA, it would allow the developer to compete with WIX (for example)

[pziecina]

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

so the fact is that if DW integrated a way to build a PWA, it would allow the developer to compete with WIX (for example)

Yes, I do agree that Dw does require such features, but it is not as simple as including a framework then forgetting everything else, (as Dw now does with other features).

To be really usefull, Dw should provide the tools and features for a developer to go beyond frameworks and 3rd party solutions. One that I belive both you and I have asked for many times, is a built-in js/php de-bugger, without which development of off-line solutions becomes a real pain in the back-side, (trying to keep the wording clean ).

Most offline and other highly popular features now offered by html5 and the w3c by way of api's, has no or bad support in Dw. Which is why unless Adobe joins in at some point in this and other similar discussions, most of any development solutions offered by Dw, will never really amount to what is required.

[osgood_]

pziecina  wrote

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

so the fact is that if DW integrated a way to build a PWA, it would allow the developer to compete with WIX (for example)

Yes, I do agree that Dw does require such features, but it is not as simple as including a framework then forgetting everything else, (as Dw now does with other features).

To be really usefull, Dw should provide the tools and features for a developer to go beyond frameworks and 3rd party solutions. One that I belive both you and I have asked for many times, is a built-in js/php de-bugger, without which development of off-line solutions becomes a real pain in the back-side, (trying to keep the wording clean ).

Most offline and other highly popular features now offered by html5 and the w3c by way of api's, has no or bad support in Dw. Which is why unless Adobe joins in at some point in this and other similar discussions, most of any development solutions offered by Dw, will never really amount to what is required.

I can't understand why anyone is still talking about DW introducing anything progressive to be honest, its dead in the water isnt it? Adobe have given up on that front, havent they, that's the impression I've got. Its just an average editor toddling along being kept on life support, without any real innovative offering any more. Im surprised given the financial clout Adobe has that they just dont seem to want to compete in this market place. At a guess I would say these kinds of programs, given that there are so many options now, make very little return for a company the size of Adobe, they probably have their eyes on products which command a bigger market share.

[pziecina]

osgood_  wrote

I can't understand why anyone is still talking about DW introducing anything progressive to be honest, its dead in the water isnt it? Adobe have given up on that front, havent they, that's the impression I've got. Its just an average editor toddling along being kept on life support, without any real innovative offering any more. Im surprised given the financial clout Adobe has that they just dont seem to want to compete in this market place. At a guess I would say these kinds of programs, given that there are so many options now, make very little return for a company the size of Adobe, they probably have their eyes on products which command a bigger market share.

That's probably just a few of the many reasons developers like Ben are having client problems. There is no point in Dw incorporating anything if a few months later cheaper or free solutions are then offered to Dw users clients, by way of solutions such as wix.

As for Dw being 'dead in the water', why would any serious developer use it, when it offers nothing beyond free 3rd party solutions? I get the impression that no one at Adobe or assosiated with the development of Dw, even knows what is required anymore, and to talk about offline site/app availability for small or personal sites, misses the point.

Cheap and quick solutions only become viable as 'loss leaders', when a company is offering them as enticements for other more expensive products.

[B i r n o u]

1000% agree.

the fact is that the alpha forum is no longer really active... and only announces new build.

even here no one from Adobe is listening and trying to do something about it.

as far as I'm concerned, as you already know, I only keep CS6 as project manager, and code under ST, mainly with Node.

the workflow is simple, when not developing pure application (from a white page), and for the rest of the office to stay competitive on web app, we buy templates and/or plugins on envato, we use WP when necessary... (adding personal plugin toolset) but not systematically, everything will depend on the customer's needs

so beside that, I am in the process of finalizing a tool (under ruby and node) that allows to cannibalize the purchased templates in order to correct the big heaviness (code, image, files, etc...) found with GTMetrix, this way during the updates of the template it allows to rectify the whole.

finally 2 or 3 days of human work and the client is served...

why tell you all this....

in fact I think that maybe DW should become again a management tool to link the various technologies between, but without embedding a single one... not even a code editor.... just a great organizer and techno manager for dealing project...

[BenPleysier]

And so the bickering goes on, replacing any chance of having a decent discussion. This topic was not even spared racist remarks.

With the exception of B i r n o u​ (who has done a lot of research on the subject over the past 3 or 4 years), it sounds to me that the remarks regarding PWA's are misinformed. As an example, stating that the cache is static is ludicrous.

Why is Spotify moving to PWA as we speak? How come Hulu's web site (another PWA) is updated on a regular basis? How come WhatsApp (WPA) has a desktop application which interacts with phones?

For more, Google the subject or go to 10 Best Progressive Web Apps - Mofluid.com