
All Web Developers Should Stop Doing This Immediately - rberger
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/27581/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-02-16
======
angrycoder
A web developer made that page, but it wasn't his decision to put it there. I
am going to go out on a very short limb here and say the web developer was on
the few people advocating against blocking tablet users from using the normal
website, since they actually understand how the web works.

In fact, when presented with the mandate that they needed a mobile app, the
web developer probably just wanted to create a nice HTML5 site that could be
served up in any tablet or mobile browser without the need to install a
special app for their particular device. Know why? Because that is what web
developers do.

~~~
Silhouette
> In fact, when presented with the mandate that they needed a mobile app, the
> web developer probably just wanted to create a nice HTML5 site that could be
> served up in any tablet or mobile browser without the need to install a
> special app for their particular device. Know why? Because that is what web
> developers do.

That's what we did, the first time. We carefully constructed a responsive
design that would scale to an iPad resolution and make good use of the screen
space, and that would scale again to a smartphone, taking into account single-
handed use, UI guidelines for the size of controls so they could be tapped
reliably on a high-res screen, and all that jazz.

And we learned in the process how many different ways Apple deliberately break
the web browsers in their mobile devices.

They pretend they're on a different size of screen that has no relationship to
physical reality, and scale your page accordingly. I'm sure that's great if
you really want to see an entire web site squeezed into a few square inches
with text too small to read, but it completely breaks the usual CSS tools for
building a responsive design.

You can fix that by forcing the viewport size. However, if you do then as soon
as the user rotates their iPad the browser zooms the page to show the same
content at a different scale instead of actually letting the responsive design
do its work by reflowing the layout to take advantage of the new page
dimensions while keeping everything at the same size.

You can fix _that_ by setting a maximum zoom level, and a lot of developers
stop here, but if you do then you'll sacrifice accessibility for users who
genuinely want to zoom because they have imperfect vision and have difficulty
enjoying a site at a size that is aimed at a typical visitor.

You can fix _that_ by setting the default zoom instead, detecting an
orientation change event, and resetting your overrides each time the page
rotates, as long as you can get all the proprietary hooks right and you don't
mind either browser sniffing on your server or shoving the extra code to all
your users even though most won't benefit.

And so on, and so on.

If Apple want usability for web sites on their iOS devices, they need to stop
making it actively difficult for web developers to support their users. A
single, simple option that says "make 1px = 1 physical pixel" would be
sufficient to fix almost everything they get wrong as far as responsive design
goes. Is that really so much to ask?

<cynic> But maybe they don't, because after all they take a hefty cut of the
profits on anything you make via an app, so they have a vested interest in
pretending to support web standards but actually screwing them up to make app
development more attractive. </cynic>

If users don't like the experience they get as a result, there is an easy
solution: don't buy Apple products that are shiny but broken, buy something
else that works instead. There's no shortage of either good smartphones or
good tablets from other sources today.

(Edit: FAOD, the "we" above refers to my team and me, developing our own
products. We're not connected to the site linked at the top of this
discussion.)

~~~
shadowfiend
While these decisions all sound stupid in principle, when you actually think
about it they make a great deal of sense. They all stem from one root
requirement:

Regular websites should work with minimum problems on an iOS device.

This is a requirement that made sense when iOS came out years ago, and
honestly still makes sense today. It's why browsing on an iOS device is so
damn awesome.

That explains the different reported size. Once you have a different reported
size, you enter the viewport and zoom issues. But at that point, all the
decisions intertwine and make sense amongst themselves.

Now, why isn't there a 1px=1 physical pixel setting? That's a different
question. By which I kind of mean, “the retina display is probably the reason
there is no such setting”. Regardless, that's a missing feature. The ones that
are there all make sense, and aren't nearly as foolish as they sound at first
glance.

~~~
sopooneo
I wondered for a long time how it would be handled when screen pixel densities
got high enough. There are a couple ways to handle it, and apple took the only
one that seems completely backwards compatible: they abstracted the notion of
"1px". I guess it couldn't have really evolved any other way, but damn that is
messy.

~~~
krakensden
A CSS pixel has never been an actual pixel- it's 1 pixel at 96 dpi

~~~
sopooneo
Oh. Thank you. I hadn't known that.

------
jwr
Oh yes. We should also mention the horrible broken piece of crap called
"Onswipe", that produces a slow, broken, confusing interface that also happens
to limit screen space dedicated to reading and breaks built-in Safari zooming.

For some reason people think that they need to have a "Special Tablet
Version". You don't! Just have a normal web site, we'll be fine!

The onswipe situation got so bad that whenever I encounter a site using it I
immediately click "back" and never come back again.

UPDATE: Oh, I should also mention that half the time when trying to click
"back" I actually click the silly Onswipe button in the upper left corner of
the screen that _pretends_ to be the back button but actually does something
else (takes you to the main blog page I think). Cursing ensues.

~~~
swombat
As much as I like the team behind OnSwipe (Jason L Baptiste and Mark Bao in
particular), I have to agree with you, unfortunately. Whenever I get this
OnSwipe thing replacing a page that was perfectly good and readable, I almost
always click back without reading (once the cpu-intensive javascript pauses
long enough to allow me to do so).

What's really weird is that the result of OnSwipe being applied is actually a
page that is significantly MORE broken. The reason I've developed a habit of
clicking back is because I often can't read the article anyway, since the
scrolling is usually broken in some annoying way (keeps jumping around, not
smooth, etc). This is exceptionally bad considering that the underlying page
would almost certainly work just fine.

~~~
rdl
You could browse on an iPad 1; then, rather than having to click back
manually, OnSwipe will helpfully crash Safari so you don't need to bother
doing anything yourself.

~~~
ChrisLTD
Amen, brother. How did the current version of OnSwipe pass basic compatibility
testing?

~~~
ricky_rozay
Onswipe seduced me too at first but it really is impossible to update or
troubleshoot ( God forbid tweak the design...) when it hardly ever works on
any of my devices. I didn't realize others felt the same..this discussion has
really articulated a lot of my frustration with feeling like there are 8
different internets depending on the device and how recently it was updated

~~~
ChrisLTD
Although I haven't tested this in any meaningful way, I'd be willing to bet
OnSwipe simply relies to heavily on JavaScript. My iPad 1 struggles with any
page loaded up with scripts, even ones that seem like they might not have any
at all. For instance, news websites are often chock full of scripts for
analytics, social media plugins, and advertisements.

OnSwipe probably works pretty well on desktop machines where it's developed,
but today's tablets simply can't handle the processing and memory requirements
necessary to make it an enjoyable experience.

------
51Cards
It's really simple, I believe they serve up their videos with Flash which your
tablet doesn't support. Flash for video isn't going away yet in many cases
because HTML 5 video is still lacking all of the security features sites like
this one require. So they did the next best thing, they built a custom app for
your platform which gave them the security they desired and you a full user
experience.

Edit: Just confirmed I can watch their videos on my Android tablet, thus it's
just a lack of Flash that caused this. In fact on my ASUS Slider they are
playing perfectly.

~~~
hollerith
Consequently, Apple should provide a secure way for outfits like _60 Minutes_
to publish video to iPads without the outfit having to have an iPad app.

~~~
untog
Where's their incentive to do that?

~~~
hollerith
Actually they do do that: it's called iTunes Video Store.

------
shrikant
I didn't see the author of the piece mention it anywhere, but this is clearly
because his friend sent him a link to a video which is delivered via Flash. 60
Minutes video segments on the CBS News site don't have any associated text
below them. He'd have been better served by his friend sending him the link to
the associated article instead.

(...or is this so blindingly obvious that it just doesn't warrant a mention?)

IIRC on the iPad, even YouTube links open the YouTube app. Not sure what
happens if you don't have the app installed - does it ask you to download the
app instead?

 _Edit_ : I suppose one could make the argument that if the CBS News website
can serve up different stuff to the iPad, then they might as well serve up
what's compatible instead..

~~~
Ogre
YouTube links do open the YouTube app, but embedded YouTube videos also work
just fine inline. If you open youtube.com in the browser, videos also play in
the browser. Vimeo and other video sites also play directly in the browser, no
app required.

You can't play Flash video in the browser, but that doesn't mean you can't
play video in the browser.

~~~
john-n
Until you meet a monetized video, and will likely be "not available on
mobile", since they cant prevent you easily copying that video etc etc.

Has there been any movement on a secure way to use the <video> tag yet?

~~~
comex
The security of Flash video is a myth, as rtmpdump has had RTMPE support for a
long time (though Flash has been ahead of the cat and mouse game for temporary
periods), and Replay Video Catcher provides a more general solution.
"Securing" HTML5 video would be a shameful waste of time, as it would
inevitably mess up Linux etc. with no actual benefit to publishers.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
It doesn't have to be 100% secure, it just has to be more secure than right
click -> save as. Torrent sites aren't getting their content from Hulu or
Netflix.

Securing HTML5 video is the only way we're going to have Hollywood content
stream over the web again. That's just reality. But it's looking more and more
like these types of appwalls are what the future holds for the web.

~~~
hapless
Torrent sites don't derive content from Hulu or Netflix because the quality is
poorer than iTunes. There's no conceivable reason for pirates to settle for a
1 mbps Netflix stream when the 6 mbps iTunes is available.

It has nothing to do with the security. (Heck, iTunes video has some kind of
DRM attached.)

------
MattBearman
Like other's have said, this is _not_ the developer's decision. In fact it was
things like this that made me quit my job to go freelance.

Me and the other developers would spend literally hours explaining and re-
explaining why links to external sites should not be opened in a new window.
But because some marketing douchebag once said it was a good idea, our pleas
went un-heard.

In short, don't blame the developers, admittedly a small portion of the blame
is with them for not fighting hard enough, or being prepared to walk away. But
the vast majority of the blame lies higher up the food chain.

~~~
HaloZero
I'm curious, why is opening external links in a new window a bad idea? Just
breaking the flow of navigation?

~~~
Lockyy
As a user, assuming by "new window" he also means "new tab", I would always
prefer external links to open in a new tab. I don't want to click a link half
way through an article and suddenly have the new page replace my current one.
Because hey, I was reading that.

If he is specifically talking about arguing against opening in a new window as
opposed to a new tab then I'm behind him 100%. Why would you even do that? It
makes no sense.

I would be interested in clarification however. And if he is arguing against
opening new tabs, why?

Edit: Unless he is talking about a pre-tab era?

~~~
icebraining
As a user, I like to remain in control of whether it should open on a new tab
or not. I hate sites that decide for me.

~~~
Lockyy
After both your posts I just realised that yes, it is better to let it
overwrite the page, because the option is there for the user to override this
with the middle-click. I've middle clicked all links for so long that I didn't
even think about the fact I was choosing to open things in a new tab.

Thanks for changing my mind.

------
fookyong
This decision was made by sales / marketing. The people who pay the developer.

Go work at a big company where you are a cost center (they make their money
from ad sales not your web innovation) and you'll get to implement the same
dumb crap as this.

------
frankus
My pet peeve is deep links that get redirected to the mobile home page.

That and sites that open in "mobile mode" on a tablet. 10x7 should be plenty
of pixels for your normal site.

~~~
setrofim_
There is another concern besides screen space -- bandwidth. Since a mobile
device can be accessing the site over 3G as well as WiFi, where bandwidth is
at a premium, it is better to serve up the smaller mobile version.

~~~
frankus
I hadn't thought of that. I've only recently gotten a 3G-capable iPad, and I
did manage to rack up 121MB in a few hours of browsing.

------
InclinedPlane
There is a variant of this which is to auto-detect mobile browsers and
redirect from "desktop" urls to the mobile _homepage_. This behavior is so
massively brain dead it's ridiculous. If you're not going to do a smart
redirect to the proper mobile version of the actual individual page then in
most cases it's best to just serve up the desktop page.

------
johnrob
That whole internet/hyperlink/REST thing that we developed over the last 20
years? That was just a stop gap while we transitioned from mouse pointers to
capacitive touch screens. Now that we point with our fingers instead of our
hands, we need to reinvent the architecture of shared information.

------
ypcx
On my Galaxy Nexus I have an option "Load the Desktop version of this site". I
don't see this option in the new Chrome Beta though. On iOS I had to jailbreak
and install an SBSettings toggle to change Safari's UA, which restarted it,
but then it worked more reliably than the one in my Android. But yeah, not
having to root or jailbreak and getting the functionality I need is one of the
long list of reasons I will never look back to Apple's ecosystem. The future
is open, the future is web apps, and there is no place for closed ecosystems
no matter how rich or extensive they may look now. Give people open tools and
we can have more web apps than app store has apps in a very rapid time.

~~~
philbarr
Dolphin allows you to choose your user agent on Android. I'm starting to
really like Dolphin...

------
kyberias
The author does not _want_ to download an app because it is "antisocial use of
public bandwidth". What exactly is social use of the bandwidth then? Is this
kind of attitude common?

~~~
jonpacker
Furthermore, the author was just about to stream a video which would likely be
much larger than the app itself.

------
peterwwillis
_"Why do so many web developers think that tablets are an excuse to break the
functionality of the web?"_

Web developers have been breaking the functionality of the web for years. A
lot of 'feature-rich' web apps today are almost unusable on a mobile device,
much less for a disabled person. So instead of making a 'mobile friendly'
version of their site, they made an app.

Maybe some day they'll find it cheaper and easier to just make one site that
works for all devices. But that probably sounds crazy.

------
joshu
it is totally awesome when sites offer a crappy ancient mobile version of the
site that doesn't actually remember the page you wanted to go to.

it is even more offen when they offer a crazy javascript version of the site
that crashes if you try to "swipe" to the next page.

------
xefer
They're a scourge. In Terms of overall annoyance, it's ironic that Apps are
quietly ecoming the new Flash.

------
brador
Useful titles, that work well in RSS and search need to be enforced, else we
will get a situation like Reddit's front page, which is currently full of
meaningless clickbait titles.

~~~
lignuist
All HN Posters Should Stop Doing This Immediately.

I wonder, if it's just a lacking sense of communication.

For example, a friend of mine sends me emails like "Do you have a minute. I've
got a question.", "There's something we should talk about.", without
mentioning what's the actual purpose of his messages. I would expect at least
a keyword. More than once I tried to stop him from doing this - without
success.

------
Torn
CBSNews (powering Gamespot and a load of other content sites) are f---ing
terrible at mobile interaction. View a site link on a mobile device and
they'll serve you a mobile version of their front page. That's it.

You've then got to click 'full site' to see the full frontpage and set your
preference cookie, and then press back a few times to retry your original
request.

------
tocomment
You know what else bothers me on mobile browsing. There are some websites
where I can't zoom in on the iPhone. I've tried researching it so I could make
a bookmarklett or something to disable that, but I can't find what's causing
it. Does anyone know?

~~~
MatthewPhillips
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mobile/Viewport_meta_tag>

------
chmike
This also put forward the problem of table and mobile apps behaving as
isolated information processing silos.

I wouldn't say it breaks the web, but it is clearly missing a fundamental and
significant property of the web and from this perspective it is a regression.

------
dave1010uk
This isn't just on tablets but all mobile devices to some extent. People
assume a context based on the browser's user agent string. A good tradeoff is
a banner at the top of the page, with a link to the app.

I've also seen people remove information from a site for mobile users as its
less important. If content isn't important to show to some users then it's
likely it shouldn't be shown at all.

Another assumption web developers make is that mobile users won't be browsing
certain pages that advertise a mobile site or app. I've seen many blog posts
saying "check out our new mobile sites at _m.example.com_ ", using the bold
tag to show its a URL instead of an HTML link.

------
buff-a
_A friend sends me a link to a 60 Minutes segment she feels it's important I
watch. I'm on an iPad -- not that it matters ... There is no alternative -- no
way to click through to the video or text that I was after_

Somewhere like this: <http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7398478n> ?

...

<div id="flashvideocontent">

So, _no_ there is _no way_ to click through to the video you were after
because you are on an iPad, and iPad's do not have Adobe Flash. That means if
you want to see the link that your friend sent, then you are going to have to
download an app. Blame Apple and Adobe, not the website.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"So, no there is no way to click through to the video"

Because the site set it up that way. Intentionally. So, yes, I blame the site.

Sites with a clue (like YouTube and Vimeo) have been serving HTML5 video for a
couple of years now.

It's just a matter of adding another step to your automated transcoding
workflow (you have one, right?)

For a small indie site the disk space consumed by keeping video in 2 or 3
different formats might be an issue, but for CBS?

------
mustardhamsters
I have been fortunate enough that when my bosses come to me and say "we want
an iPhone app" I can explain why this is a bad business decision and they
listen to me. A native app should not just be a little button for your web
content.

------
Confusion
Awesome, I'm not the only one that hates apps that are nothing more than a
browser for a single website. What are people thinking, that we like to have a
separate app for every website we enjoy visiting? Have they actually ever used
a smartphone/tablet?

If your website links to other sites and you load that in Safari again? Guess
what, you just lost me. I'm not going to close Safari and load your app again,
whereas closing a new tab would have returned me to your site. The same thing
happens when your in-app browser just isn't up to scratch: I'll have to copy-
paste the address into Safari and I'm annoyed and gone.

------
untog
A few days ago I had an article that was popular on HN. I was watching my live
Analytics tracking and saw that I had an inbound referral from
"chat.stackexchange.com"- I looked up the full URL, and tried it in my
browser.

Just like that, I was in the chat room discussing the topic of my post with
the people that had found it. It occurred to me that if they were using almost
any other kind of chat system (like an app, but also including IRC) I would
never have been able to do that. It's a shame, but I suppose there are also
privacy concerns at stake.

------
tmroyal
Isn't the real problem here that instead of an honest statement about why the
app needs to be downloaded (ie. no Flash on the iPad), something looking like
an advertisement is served instead? That the author assumed the worst might be
due to the apparent dishonesty rather than any paranoia on the author's part.

Of course, the problem might be a little more complicated, because some less
adept users seeing that a website will not load on their device might blame
those who made the website.

Still, CBS's solution clearly isn't the one making lemonade out of lemons.

------
hmottestad
Have you tried using a different browser and changing your user-agent?

------
radarsat1
Another thing: we need a "tablet" mode for websites, that is distinct from
"mobile." Several websites assume I am on a phone when I visit them with my
Galaxy Tab, and enforce the use of a tiny font. Perhaps ironically, on these
"mobile" websites, zooming seems to be broken, whereas on regular websites I
can double-tap and it will zoom in to make the font size bigger and reflow the
paragraph to fit my device. Examples are Slashdot and Live Journal, but there
are others.

------
xelfer
Even though IMDB have a mobile site (automatically redirects you to
m.imdb.com), it STILL prompts you to download the app every single time you
visit. Extremely annoying.

------
lojack
This decision has nothing to do with web developers. These are the kinds of
choices made by those who don't understand the usability implications of their
decisions.

------
pacala
> Why do so many web developers think that tablets are an excuse to break the
> functionality of the web?

ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION, ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, INTERNET,
PROCESS_OUTGOING_CALLS, READ_CALENDAR, READ_CONTACTS, READ_HISTORY_BOOKMARKS,
READ_PROFILE, READ_SMS, READ_SOCIAL_STREAM, SUBSCRIBED_FEEDS_READ

user: scroll, scroll, grumble, scroll, scroll, scroll, finally!, ALLOW

------
chernevik
Native apps do have a persistence advantage over HTML. My apps for the WSJ, FT
and Economist download entire issues for availability offline. I haven't seen
that done in HTML.

In terms of web breakage, these all offer urls to the same article on the web
page, so they don't break the web going into the sites. I haven't seen them
use outbound links.

------
mattbeck
It's not just tablets, I get that junk on my other android and iOS devices
(nook, phone, etc) all the time now.

For some reason the news sites seem to be the worst offenders.

It feels very much like the paywall thing that devastated so many newspaper
sites a few years back. Despite having highly desirable content, they just
don't get the internet (still).

------
albertsun
Web developers need conscientious objector status when tasked with building
features they know are bad for the web.

------
greggman
The cynical answer is because once you install an app they can

* Push ads to you even when you're not viewing their content * Read your address book

I hate it too. I also hate sites that ask me to install their app every time I
visit. No, I don't want the IMDB app nor do I want the Rottentomatoes app, etc
etc..

Unfortunately the majority seem to love it :-(

------
eapen
Web developers may not be responsible but they are sensible enough to advocate
against such an approach. I have also come across the same issue on my Android
phone and even after installing their stupid app, I still get prompted to
download it. I gave their app the minimum possible rating.

------
gravitronic
The irony is that their app will probably just be a framed browser view
anyways...

------
TwoBit
IMO this is part Safari's fault for not giving you the option of acting like a
desktop browser and not being able to run Flash. The former can be solved by
downloading a different ipad browser.

------
gallerytungsten
Isn't there a user agent switcher for iPad? That would seem to be the easy fix
for such annoyances. (I don't have an iPad, but it seems like an obvious thing
that would be available.)

------
ABS
Or: All Technical Savvy People Should Stop Buying A Device Entirely Built
Around Apps Over The Web And Then Complain They Have To Download Apps.

(or buy it and don't complain, that's fine too)

------
tocomment
Is there any way to change the user agent on the iPhone or iPad? Maybe someone
could start a proxy for iPhones that could do this?

------
teeray
Equally frustrating: when the no scale attribute is set for sites that are not
optimized for viewing on mobile or tablet screens.

------
nikanj
All Content Posters Should Start Writing Headlines That Don't Remind Me Of
Reddit.

------
klez
> It feels like vandalism. This is what hackers do.

He lost me here. Too bad it was almost the end of the article and I also
agreed with him.

~~~
marshray
I thought it was an interesting comparison.

Although I would disagree with it in the sense that any real hacker would
likely come up with a far more creative defacement. :-)

------
pan69
This has nothing to do with web developers, they don't make the decisions
there. A bunch of marketing bimbo's do.

------
sravfeyn
It's too uncommon to find this kind of article(rants) on Technology Review.

------
tkahn6
Is there a way to change your User-Agent in the iPad browser?

~~~
Ogre
Not in Safari, but there are other browsers like Terra
([http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/terra-web-browser-tabs-
full/i...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/terra-web-browser-tabs-
full/id394704159?mt=8)) that let you select a User-Agent. Sites that do this
are pretty much the only reason I have Terra on my iPad.

------
atirip
Totally wrong forum/place to complain. Here at HN people love that a lot!
Because there was some time ago some post where on iPad I arrived on app
download page - so I posted comment a'la "what shit is this" and got massively
downvoted for that.

~~~
shrikant
It gets my goat when people complain of having been downvoted for saying 'the
exact same thing', when something else in line with a previous sentiment is
heavily upvoted. (Maybe I just need to develop a greater Internet forum
tolerance..)

You seem to be referring to this comment[1]. Actually speaking though, you
weren't downvoted because people disagreed, but because your comment:

1) didn't add anything to the discussion at hand

2) wasn't particularly coherent

3) set no context whatsoever for your discontent (were you on an iPad? some
other mobile device? does it seem like a common occurrence?)

I've made my fair share off-topic rants about the submission's readability and
other annoyances (and seen other such comments) that were reasonably 'well
received' by the community because it actually set the tone for a discussion.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3173014>

~~~
atirip
I wasn't complaining at all. I was ironic, but as I got downvoted for that
too, then irony i guess, is also not welcome here...

~~~
marshray
People here want something that makes them think. They go out of their way to
reject posts for which the primary responses are simple agreement ("me too")
or disagreement ("is not").

Perhaps you simply weren't being ironic in a sufficiently interesting way.

