I was reading up on how to make a webapp available offline. I want offline runnable webapps. The biggest argument I allways hear about webbased (business) apps is: “Yeah OK, but what if my internet connection fails?”
I’ve got a whole array of ready made answers to these questions but in the end, the best answer should be “No problem, it just keeps runnig, with a cached dataset, look”.
So a while ago I stumbled on Google Gears. This holds the promise of achieving just that. Among a lot of blogs on this, I came to this one: Google Gears Takes Web Apps Offline. Look at the comments.
So what’s wrong with GG? A lot I think, lemme explain. On this post, on another blog, I commented about the problems we traditionally had with desktop apps such as problems of deployment, cross platform compatibility and maintainability. Yes, you have to install a webbrowser extension (users often dont trust these anymore), you have to copy some files from a website (again: users often dont trust these anymore), and then run the app locally.
The next issue I have with this is that the entire app has to be written in Javascript. I felt like being thrown back in the stoneage (about 10 years ago in IT land).
I want apps that just run, without installing anything on the client side. I’m probably living in utopia…
I think the desktop is going to die, but not at the hand of Google Gears…
August 11, 2007 at 20:29 |
The age of “ubiquitous computing” is already upon us, with its unique challenges to existing technology and mindsets. “A List Apart” has a great article that summarizes these issues (<a href=” ”>http://www.alistapart.com/articles/everyware/).
The desktop is going to die, whether at the hands of GG or the next “Big Thing” that wrecks the underpinnings of MSO and other packages. But before that happens, we’ll have to transform quite a few mindsets, and come up with a paradigm for solving the usability problems unique to web-based / distributed apps.
As far as JavaScript goes, let me quote Michael Lovett:
” Some things never change. A few years ago, everyone wanted a Flash site. Now, everyone wants AJAX. Nevermind that everyone asking for it has no idea what it is and how it should be used. I’m just waiting for the Adobe/Macromedia team to include an AJAX template into Dreamweaver and watch it all blow up. (I love AJAX for its appropriate uses, just not everything.)
Mr. Lovett’s viewpoint on tool selection mirrors mine – developers should use the right tool for the job, not whatever is “hawt” at the moment. When you only have a hammer, all problems are suddenly reduced to nails.
Besides, how do you expect to develop an app that runs on the desktop – but doesn’t install anything on the client’s machine? It seems that the easier path would be to get people to understand that concept that, while installing packages from strange sources is a Bad Idea, accepting the installation of a browser extension or a similar small component from a trusted source is OK. After all, don’t we all click on “Continue Installation” when a hardware driver prompts us to?
User allows installation = user gets more functions. Whether it’s a fully-loaded Web-based app, or the latest videocard.
Google Docs works without installing anything, but something more complex…?
August 11, 2007 at 22:03 |
It is very true that developers should not just choose whatever technology is hyped at the moment but really consider what technology they are going to use and why.
I expect to develop an app that runs on the desktop without installing anything when the necessary frameworks exits on the desktop to support just that.
In Firefox 3.0 it is said this will be something that will be supported. I don’t know how yet.
I honestly believe tomorrows browsers will hold the possibility to cache webapps/datasets and then run them offline.