
Mobile apps will only be considered once core web service works well on mobile - dave1010uk
http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2013/03/12/were-not-appy-not-appy-at-all/
======
potatolicious
I disagree - native apps aren't somehow an extension of websites, they address
a different use case altogether.

The two examples brought up should never have been apps (and if apps were
built, someone is doing something very wrong) because they were never regular-
use services. How often do you book a driving exam or look up city regulation?

There are use cases where you _don't_ want a website-first approach. Instagram
would never fly as a mobile site, nor would Facebook, nor Twitter. When you're
building something you're expecting users to hit multiple times a day, the
native experience is _far_ better.

The reverse is also true: if your product is _not_ something that people will
be hitting every day, _don't build an app for it and stop wasting time_.

~~~
WickyNilliams
I exclusively use the facebook mobile web app. The native app used to be much
slower and have less features than the web incarnation. The speed issues were
apparently remedied by going 100% native (it was hybrid before?) but I've
never felt the need to go back. And I guess the web app will always be ahead
of native in terms of features given that it's probably in lock-step with the
desktop web app?

I find your argument a little off though. If native is so important for
regular use services why is there no desktop facebook app? Yes, faster
connections, but these days I have no problem in 95% of situations getting a
good mobile connection.

~~~
dave1010uk
To add to your example, the Facebook mobile site also inherits all the mobile
browser features that many apps lack. For example, the mobile web site has
better copy/pasting than the app, works with browser extensions (eg AdBlock &
Stylish) and allows multiple simultaneous views (browser tabs). The browser is
also kept in the device's RAM so normally loads faster than other apps.

~~~
WickyNilliams
Very good poiny! I thought I had alluded to this in my original comment but I
guess I removed before posting.

I know the browser UI better than I know your app's UI. I know how copy/paste
works. I know what enter will do in the context of a form. I know how to open
things in new tabs, or go into incognito mode. Shit I even know how to inspect
the client-side code of your mobile app. And all the other things that I know
because it's standard behaviour across browsers.

------
harryf
What a huge missed opportunity. Think of the data a government could gather on
its citizens with an enlightened app policy! Or the tax app that sends you
rude push messages when you're late with your return. And what better way to
report you neighbor for letting their dog poop in the park than an Instagram-
style feedback app?

Jesting aside, there are reasons to be happy about their no-app policy

~~~
anon1385
I don't understand your point, perhaps I'm missing the joke.

>Think of the data a government could gather on its citizens with an
enlightened app policy!

The web is full of services that track users. UK government sites are already
using Google Analytics[1] and thus sending data about users to companies in
foreign countries so they can track them.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5127921>

------
omonra
I think this is a great policy - for the reason that government should provide
same service to ALL citizens regardless of what phone they happen to own.
Equality of access is paramount - other technical considerations are
secondary.

If they were to create an app, it would most likely be an Iphone app (judging
from experience of how these things work - whatever the cause). It would come
with a disclaimer "We'll have the Android app as soon as possible". Meanwhile
the Windows app may never come. So here immediately majority of people with
mobile phones are unable to access the service - because they happen to have a
'wrong' phone.

Since every smartphone comes with a web browser, every user will be able to
access the service.

------
mbesto
_Our position is that native apps are rarely justified._

True, but they don't explain why. The reality is it doesn't make sense for a
native app to exist that doesn't constantly and consistently engage with your
customer. The mobile environment is about speed to consuming
content/information (or games). The argument for the native app is that the
process (and therefore invested time) of downloading an app should outweigh
the speed at which the functions and use of app are gained by having a native
app. In other words, if it takes me 5 minutes to download the app, it should
take X% less time to get to information that I want compared to the loading
times, loggin in, etc of a browser based app.

------
nathan_long
Excellent policy.

------
tomelders
I'd say the people behind the new Gov.uk website are single handedly killing
the notion that government can't do things as well as the private sector.

They're doing "web" right, whereas _most_ private sector UK firms (including
design/development agencies) are doing "web" wrong. Very wrong.

~~~
anon1385
Sure if 'doing "web" right' means sending my personal information to private
companies based in a foreign countries when I visit government web pages [1].
This may be the Silicon Valley/libertarian idea of the web done right, but it
isn't mine.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5127921>

~~~
jiggy2011
What would be the alternative? They probably need some form of analytics in
order to iterate and make the site better.

The alternative would be to spend time and money developing their own.

Besides most of the information in analytics is simply which pages you viewed
and when, it's not like they are sending all of your tax data to google.

------
programminggeek
This is a stupid policy. Mobile apps are as much about distribution as
anything. People like them, they download them, they understand them. For
example, it is 100% easier to find an app on the app store than it is to type
in a website url. Also, apps stay on your home screen, web sites don't, unless
you bookmark them, which most end users don't even know you can do.

So, um... why are we fighting what users want and like to use?

~~~
perpetuated
Because the Government Digital Service are, for the most part, ideologues.
Disagree though I may with much of their policy, it's novel that a Government
department actually have drive and direction.

Love their line of F/OSS, but they've done nothing with it, other than Gov.uk.
I can't see them accepting pseudonymous pull requests, though.

~~~
FourthProtocol
F/OSS is great for gov.uk. It's a very bad idea anywhere else. There's no
government department I've encountered that doesn't rely on Active Directory,
and there are a lot of projects where F/OSS is being pushed and then
abandoned.

