CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
server: GitHub.com
content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8
last-modified: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 05:15:48 GMT
access-control-allow-origin: *
etag: W/"570f2784-24de"
expires: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:47:58 GMT
cache-control: max-age=600
content-encoding: gzip
x-proxy-cache: MISS
x-github-request-id: 7C55:32DAC8:166E41:1A99E3:68A23DA4
accept-ranges: bytes
age: 0
date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:37:58 GMT
via: 1.1 varnish
x-served-by: cache-bom-vanm7210029-BOM
x-cache: MISS
x-cache-hits: 0
x-timer: S1755463079.670286,VS0,VE217
vary: Accept-Encoding
x-fastly-request-id: 61be6fb56c3e81ee38e78cbc2761f382b08df0a0
content-length: 3126
Web Apps Gap Analysis From Provider Perspective
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org> / @dontcallmedom
Last Modified: $Date: 2013-09-18 07:41:36 $
Web Apps Gap Analysis From Provider Perspective
Status
This is a draft, work-in-progress analysis derived from the “Closing the Gap with Native” Headlight task force.
Introduction
To compare the various existing mobile apps development approaches, two main perspectives can be taken:
- from the end-user perspective: how well the said development approach will make it possible to provide the best possible user experience;
- from the content and service provider perspective: how well the said development approach will optimize their costs and benefits.
This document applies the separately developed model to analyze a give mobile app development approach from provider perspective to Web applications.
See also:
- Proposals to reduce the gaps of Web applications from a provider perspective
- Framework to compare mobile apps development approaches from a user experience perspective
Web Applications Strengths and Weaknesses from a Provider Perspective
Provider experience parameter | Strength | Weakness |
---|---|---|
Development cost | ||
Hiring / training developers | A lot of Web developers | Not many Web developers know how to develop good Web apps for mobile |
Writing code | Plenty of IDEs for the Web | Support for responsive approaches? |
Finding documentation and guidance | Lots of Web-related sites and forums | Lack of authoritative content? |
Finding libraries | Lots of them | Hard to find the right one, esp. with mobile constraints |
Reporting platform bugs | Technologies are developed in public |
|
Debugging and diagnostics | Same Web platform on desktop and mobile makes it somewhat easier to debug |
|
Testing | Lots of automated testing tools, incl. on mobile | Hard to test chrome-based user interactions (e.g. consent dialog) |
Deployment cost | ||
Getting authorization to deploy | None required | |
Uploading the app | Mostly seamless | |
Advertising the app | As open as anything else on the Web |
|
Protecting the app code and operations | Server-side component out of reach to client-side attackers | Hard to get as thorough protection of client-side as available to native apps |
Maintenance cost | ||
Getting user input and feedback | Use the Web | No one-click infrastructure to share comments associated to a given identity (assuming reputation is an incentive) |
Keeping up with incompatible changes in the platform | Platform evolutions are decided in the open | Hard to keep track of these evolutions |
Getting visibility into future new features of the platform |
|
|
Expected outcomes | ||
Reaching out to as many users as possible |
|
Hard to design apps that work well across many devices, browsers, culture, etc. |
Getting paid | Each provider can pick its most appropriate payment system |
|
Getting recognition | Neutral? | |
Enabling social change |
|
This project is funded by the European
Union through the
Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2010-2013) under grant agreement
n°257103
webinos
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org> / @dontcallmedom
Last Modified: $Date: 2013-09-18 07:41:36 $