Web Apps
|
Ali Savas
Hi all,
in the NVDA main group a discussion about web apps started, that started with the topic Outlook. There I shared that I hate such web applications. Brian was interested in why I hate this kind of applications. I hope I can write it understandably, because my English is not very good. In my opinion, unfortunately, more and more applications are developed in so-called "web apps". Personally, I don't like this kind of development. This is more for technical reasons than the actual operation with screen readers itself. If you develop these web applications well, you won't notice anything as a screen reader user. Every web application runs in a restricted browser. If you look at it more closely, every web application is, in simple terms, a web page that runs in a browser. This is where I think the problem already exists. There are currently no real standards for web applications. Every single web application can bring its own browser. As a result, these applications can become unnecessarily large and even take up an unnecessary amount of memory. On top of that, such applications can be very resource hungry, depending on how they are programmed. I am absolutely no opponent of progress. On the contrary. However, my personal opinion is that applications should be native if possible and not a website that runs in a container. If I want to go to a web page, I go to a web page and use the application in a browser. I miss the good old days when programming was native and applications were really fast and responsive. Plus, they didn't feel like web pages. Of course, there are advantages to developing applications with JavaScript and ko. Web applications are developed very quickly and are platform independent or are very quick to port. However, there are also ways to develop applications natively that are just as fast to develop as the web applications. Of course, this is just my personal opinion. I don't expect everyone to accept my opinion. In the end, there's nothing I can do about it anyway. The world is changing and if it changes in this direction, I can't stop it anyway. Kind regards Ali |
|
|
|
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:03 PM, Ali Savas wrote:
There are currently no real standards for web applications.- First, I agree that in matters of taste and opinion there is no arguing those. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. I do want to comment on the above observation, as someone who is 60 years old and spent many years as a programmer, programmer-analyst, and database administrator: This is different than virtually any other computer programming in what way? The key word in that comment is "currently." Almost nothing starts out life in the world of computing with standards or conventions. It can't, but those do tend to develop as any given arena matures. By the way, when I say web app I truly mean something that runs in a standard web browser. Gmail's webmail is an example of a web app, a true web app, in my opinion. I don't consider Outlook One (Project Monarch) a web app regardless of how, exactly, it's implemented because it's not accessed in any way, shape, or form the way one accesses things in conventional web browsers. It's way more like a Windows Universal App in look and feel than a true web app is. I long ago learned that I cannot stop whatever tech juggernauts are trendy at the moment, so I no longer waste any emotional energy on caring. My energy is focused on learning how to use whatever gets thrown at me, because that's really the only practical choice. I can't control what makers make and put out there for me to use but I can give feedback (and do) and learn to use the latest thing that's come down the pike. That's way more efficient than railing against it. -- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|
|
Ali Savas
Hi Brian,
On 3/19/2023 18:11 Brian Vogel wrote: Well, in the "traditional" programming the applications were as already written (depending on the programming) much faster and not resource hungry. They were compiled natively and did not have to be interpreted.This is different than virtually any other computer programming in what way? By the way, when I say web app I truly mean something that runs in a standard web browser. Gmail's webmail is an example of a web app, a true web app, in my opinion.I definitely count the applications like Teams as a web application as well, even if they are not opened in a browser. They are developed with Electron and the like. Applications developed in Electron are effectively a web application in a restricted browser. I long ago learned that I cannot stop whatever tech juggernauts are trendy at the moment, so I no longer waste any emotional energy on caring. My energy is focused on learning how to use whatever gets thrown at me, because that's really the only practical choice. I can't control what makers make and put out there for me to use but I can give feedback (and do) and learn to use the latest thing that's come down the pike. That's way more efficient than railing against it.You're absolutely right. if we can't control what developers develop and how, all that's left for us to do is learn how to use the applications. Best regards Ali |
|
|
|
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:31 PM, Ali Savas wrote:
I definitely count the applications like Teams as a web application as well, even if they are not opened in a browser.- I preface the following with: I am NOT saying that I am right and you are wrong. This points out just how early in the process we are, and how nebulous the term web app is. And that's a big problem because its entirely possible for someone to reasonably say, "Teams is not a web app," given its look and feel. This goes right back to there not yet being standards and conventions. If we don't have a shared definition of what's meant by "web app" then discussing anything using that particular term is fraught. You can't have any kind of discussion if those involved do not have a shared definition for the thing being discussed. Either you, or I, in this case would need to accept the definition used by the other in order to have any meaningful conversation. I can't count how often this particular type of "terminological nebulousness" has occurred since I started in computing in the mid-1980s. -- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|
|
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:31 PM, Ali Savas wrote:
Well, in the "traditional" programming the applications were as already written (depending on the programming) much faster and not resource hungry. They were compiled natively and did not have to be interpreted.- My point was about standards and conventions, not how programs are structured or the resources they take. I just want to make that clear. I have never seen any new thing in the world of computing come into being without there being a "wild west" period where all sorts of things are being tried (and sometimes discarded) by those at the cutting edge and after something becomes widely accepted as something that's useful and going to hang around that's when conventions and standards end up being developed. For the brand, spankin' new that's never been done before, conventions and standards always come along after the fact. Then those conventions and standards evolve as the technologies evolve (see WiFi or the various cellular generations as but two examples among many). -- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|
|
Ali Savas
Hi,
OK, I can understand that. Then I would personally speak of "applications developed with web technology". Then it wouldn't matter whether these applications are really web applications or not. Ali On 3/19/2023 18:45 Brian Vogel wrote: On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:31 PM, Ali Savas wrote: |
|
|
|
Ali Savas
Hi,
OK, the problem was actually that we didn't write about the same thing. That every new technology has a wild phase was known to me as a technically interested person. I was actually still explaining why I don't like this kind of applications. Kind regards Ali On 3/19/2023 18:49 Brian Vogel wrote: On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:31 PM, Ali Savas wrote: |
|
|
|
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 02:09 PM, Ali Savas wrote:
OK, the problem was actually that we didn't write about the same thing.- I realize that. But this is what I had quoted prior to my reply about conventions and standards: ---- On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:03 PM, Ali Savas wrote: There are currently no real standards for web applications.---- This is the reason I choose to either top quote a snippet to indicate what, exactly, it is I'm about to write a reply regarding, or use interspersed quotations for that same purpose as you have. If it's not something that I've quoted, it's probably not what I'm replying about. The longer a topic becomes, the more firmly this becomes true as far as how I structure replies. It drives me insane when people post naked replies on topics that have had myriad participants and where you have no idea who or what it is they're commenting on (unless their contribution is new, standalone content). I hate it even more when bottom quoting is used and what's bottom quoted is not the message being replied to. Context is critically important in both email groups and online forums. Judicious quoting, regardless of style, makes the context clear and sloppy quoting muddies the waters terribly. -- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|
|
Teams is a web app, it uses nvda web q quick keys, and feels like a web page ergo it’s a web app to me.
From: chat@nvda.groups.io <chat@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Vogel
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 10:45 AM To: chat@nvda.groups.io Subject: Re: [NVDA Chat] Web Apps
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:31 PM, Ali Savas wrote:
- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|
|
Web apps are apps, no matter how you think of it. They run separate from a web browser and you do not have to open an address to get there, just double click and, it’s open and ready to use.
From: chat@nvda.groups.io <chat@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ali Savas
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 10:58 AM To: chat@nvda.groups.io Subject: Re: [NVDA Chat] Web Apps
Hi,
|
|
|
|
Brian's Mail list account
From a windows blind user standpoint, I agree with you, and would also add that unfortunately it has been my experience that the look and feel of these web apps can change overnight, and you have no way to get back to the old one, as you have on a stand alone program.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
One of the strengths often quoted to me of a web based app is that it is operating system agnostic. If you have a standard browser of recent vintage, it should just work. I also have what might be seen as an irrational fear of all the computing and data being our of my control. IE, I could find one day that all the internet is completely down, and could not even read my stored emails, as the programme and the data are in the cloud somewhere. Eggs in one basket problems. To me all web apps feel spongy, no matter what speed the machine runs at, and even with a fast internet connection. Its hard to define this, it just feels odd. Brian -- bglists@... Sent via blueyonder.(Virgin media) Please address personal E-mail to:- briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff' in the display name field. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ali Savas" <winman3000@...> To: <chat@nvda.groups.io> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 4:59 PM Subject: [NVDA Chat] Web Apps Hi all, in the NVDA main group a discussion about web apps started, that started with the topic Outlook. There I shared that I hate such web applications. Brian was interested in why I hate this kind of applications. I hope I can write it understandably, because my English is not very good. In my opinion, unfortunately, more and more applications are developed in so-called "web apps". Personally, I don't like this kind of development. This is more for technical reasons than the actual operation with screen readers itself. If you develop these web applications well, you won't notice anything as a screen reader user. Every web application runs in a restricted browser. If you look at it more closely, every web application is, in simple terms, a web page that runs in a browser. This is where I think the problem already exists. There are currently no real standards for web applications. Every single web application can bring its own browser. As a result, these applications can become unnecessarily large and even take up an unnecessary amount of memory. On top of that, such applications can be very resource hungry, depending on how they are programmed. I am absolutely no opponent of progress. On the contrary. However, my personal opinion is that applications should be native if possible and not a website that runs in a container. If I want to go to a web page, I go to a web page and use the application in a browser. I miss the good old days when programming was native and applications were really fast and responsive. Plus, they didn't feel like web pages. Of course, there are advantages to developing applications with JavaScript and ko. Web applications are developed very quickly and are platform independent or are very quick to port. However, there are also ways to develop applications natively that are just as fast to develop as the web applications. Of course, this is just my personal opinion. I don't expect everyone to accept my opinion. In the end, there's nothing I can do about it anyway. The world is changing and if it changes in this direction, I can't stop it anyway. Kind regards Ali |
|
|
|
Brian's Mail list account
If the basic software can be run without an internet connection, then its not a web app.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Brian -- bglists@... Sent via blueyonder.(Virgin media) Please address personal E-mail to:- briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff' in the display name field. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Vogel" <britechguy@...> To: <chat@nvda.groups.io> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [NVDA Chat] Web Apps On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 01:31 PM, Ali Savas wrote: - I preface the following with: I am NOT saying that I am right and you are wrong. This points out just how early in the process we are, and how nebulous the term web app is. And that's a big problem because its entirely possible for someone to reasonably say, "Teams is not a web app," given its look and feel. This goes right back to there not yet being standards and conventions. If we don't have a shared definition of what's meant by "web app" then discussing anything using that particular term is fraught. You can't have any kind of discussion if those involved do not have a shared definition for the thing being discussed. Either you, or I, in this case would need to accept the definition used by the other in order to have any meaningful conversation. I can't count how often this particular type of "terminological nebulousness" has occurred since I started in computing in the mid-1980s. -- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|
|
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 10:30 PM, Sarah k Alawami wrote:
Teams is a web app, it uses nvda web q quick keys, and feels like a web page ergo it’s a web app to me.- Then, Sarah, you need to make up your mind about what constitutes a web app. In your other comment, you say, "Web apps are apps, no matter how you think of it. They run separate from a web browser and you do not have to open an address to get there, just double click and, it’s open and ready to use." Teams runs entirely separate from a conventional web browser and you do "just double click (or activate) and it's open and ready to use." This is precisely what I meant when I said the definition of web app is hazy, and can quickly become meaningless (to me) if something that the end user recognizes as a web browser is not involved. There are plenty of apps that have very direct fingers in the web, any conventional email client (including dealing with online calendars), has that aspect to it, but it's certainly not a web app. Things built "under the skin" with technologies used for browsing the web, but where web connectivity is not needed to use them, are not web apps to me, and they seem to be to others. Mind you, for Teams a great deal of the functionality that you want to use requires a connection to cyberspace, but you can do most things if you don't have one and they'll go through once you do. Until and unless a clear shared meaning is established, we could be (and on occcasion, have been) talking about very different things. -- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|
|
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:08 AM, Brian's Mail list account wrote:
If the basic software can be run without an internet connection, then its not a web app.- You and I share pretty much the same definition. Though I would differ in that there are things that literally run in a web browser that don't need an internet connection to do the things they do. Those are still web apps to me because they depend on the use of a conventional web browser. Applications built using component parts also used by web browsers but where web connectivity is entirely optional are straight applications as far as I'm concerned. -- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|
|
Also, if it is built in electron, it is by default a web app. It can run offline as well to count as a web app, but a web app to me is something that nvda can use web browse keys. I’m not using the right words mainly as I don’t have them yet.
From: chat@nvda.groups.io <chat@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Vogel
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:38 AM To: chat@nvda.groups.io Subject: Re: [NVDA Chat] Web Apps
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:08 AM, Brian's Mail list account wrote:
- Brian - Virginia, USA - Windows 11 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 22H2, Build 22621; Office 2016, Version 16.0.15726.20188, 32-bit; Android 12 (MIUI 13) Let me hasten to add that I *do* like cologne. I just much prefer it as a subtle hint instead of an aromachete. ~ Clay Colwell |
|
|