When considering the various best practices surrounding the design of Mobile Web Experiences and Architectures, such works as the W3C’s Mobile Web Application Best Practices guide, or the excellent Mobile Web Best Practices site, and of course, the seminal text, Mobile First, are likely to come to mind. The concepts and strategies presented in these works are a staple in the design of many modern Mobile Web Experiences and are without question an invaluable resource. In addition to these and other similarly related works, another new and valuable resource has been made available from a very important player in the Mobile Space indeed – an actual Wireless Carrier, AT&T.
Recently, I was contacted by a representative of the AT&T Developer Program informing me of the research conducted by the AT&T Research Labs and, the subsequent resources made available by AT&T as a result of their findings. Since I was unaware of this work, I was very interesting in learning more and, after reading the introductory statements, I was quite eager to apply AT&T’s recommendations as well; to quote specifically:
We quickly saw that a few, simple design approaches could significantly improve application responsiveness.
Having read through the material in it’s entirety (provided below) I must say I am rather impressed. The information provided has very real and practical implications on the design of Mobile Web Applications. Specifically, I found the clear and concise explanation of the underlying implementation of the Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol to be particularly relevant and useful. RRC is by far one of the most important design factors to consider in terms of battery life and Application responsiveness and, as the research suggests, this may not have been common knowledge.
By far, the most interesting and notable aspect of the AT&T Research Lab’s work in this area is the fact that all of the information provided is applicable in the context of all Wireless Carriers, not just AT&T. That is, the recommendations given, such as those regarding the RRC State Machine, for example, are all based on carrier-independent standards and protocols implemented by all Wireless Carriers. As such, understanding the implementation specifics and recommendations provided is certain to prove valuable for all users of your Application, regardless of their Carrier.
If you haven’t all ready, I highly recommend reading and applying the principles provided by AT&T’s research to your current and future Mobile Web Application Designs.
Last week, shortly after I blogged about the release of jQuery Mobile 1.0, I received an email informing me of the release of another Mobile Web Framework: DHTMLX Touch 1.0.
Being that I was unfamiliar with DHTMLX Touch (as I have been using jQuery Mobile almost exclusively), I was quite interested to learn more; and, having tried the Examples and reviewed the Documentation, I was rather impressed by DHTMLX Touch.
, the jQuery Mobile Team announced the official release of jQuery Mobile 1.0.
Having worked with jQuery Mobile since Alpha 1, in the time since, the framework has certainly evolved into a mature, premier platform on which Mobile Web Applications can be built.
On a personal note, as I am currently in the process of working towards the release of a multi form-factor Mobile Web Application built on jQuery Mobile, the 1.0 release couldn’t have come at a better time.
For the past year I have been using jQuery Mobile for developing web based mobile applications leveraging HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript. Like all UI implementations, meaningful test coverage is essential to ensuring requirements have been met and refactoring can be achieved with confidence. Building applications for the Mobile Web is no different in this respect. And so, a high quality Unit Testing framework is as essential to the success of Mobile Web Applications as it is to their Desktop counterparts.
The power of QUnit lies in it’s simple and a rather unique approach to Test Driven Development in JavaScript. The QUnit API introduces a few slightly different test implementation concepts when compared to the more traditional xUnit style of TDD. In doing so, QUnit succeeds in simplifying some of the tedium of writing tests by leveraging the language features of JavaScript as opposed to strictly adhering to the more traditional xUnit conventions, the design of which is based on an fundamentally different language idiom – that is, Java.
For example, consider the follow which tests for a custom data namespace attribute in jQuery Mobile:
test("Test expected namespace override", function(){ var expected = "someNamespace-"; var actual = $.mobile.ns;
equal(actual, expected, "expecting namespace to have been set."); });
The above test may appear quite straightforward, yet it serves as a good example by illustrating how each test in QUnit is implemented by the QUnit test fixture. The first argument is simply a String which describes the test case. This is quite convenient in that the intent of a particular test case can be expressed more naturally in textual form as opposed to using a long, descriptive test method name. The Second argument contains the actual test implementation itself, which is defined as an anonymous function and passed as an argument to QUnit.test.
As you may have also noticed from the above example, there are some, perhaps subtle, differences between the QUnit style of testing and the traditional xUnit style. Specifically, whereas in xUnit assertions expected values are specified first and preceded by actuals, in QUnit actuals are specified first followed by expected values. This may feel a bit odd at first however, after a few tests it’s easy to get used to. Additionally, where an assertion message is specified before any arguments in xUnit, in QUnit assertion messages are specified after all arguments. With regard to test descriptions, this is a difference I prefer as, a test message is always optional so passing this value last make sense. While somewhat subtle differences, these are worth noting.
A Complete Example
As code can typically convey much more information than any lengthy article could ever hope to achieve, I have provided a simple, yet complete, example which demonstrates a basic qUnit test implementation. (run) (source).
I recently read a preview of a column which is to be published in the next addition of ACM CHI magazine, Interactions. This particular article is a rather interesting read in that it touches upon what the authors argue are the many short-comings in current Gestural Interfaces; stating that they pose a huge step backwards in terms of Usability.
This may not have raised many eyebrows if it were not for the expertise of the articles authors, Donald A. Norman and Jakob Nielsen; both of whom know quite a bit about HCI.
Experimentation in new technology and the process of learning what works and what does not can be challenging. This article raises some important, yet mostly overlooked, concerns surrounding new technologies which are built upon Gestural Interfaces; i.e. current touch screen devices such as iOS and Android. Certainly a good read for anyone interested in Touch Screen development. Gestural Interfaces: A Step Backwards In Usability
The article is particularly interesting in that it touches on (pun intended) the human factors involved in how we physically interact with devices. The Activity Zones outlined in the article equate to the areas which provide the greatest level of physical comfort when interacting with a touchscreen device.
The general physicality of natural, symbolic and sequential gestures associated with designing touchscreen experiences as well as the environmental distractions and engagement models of mobile experiences is a topic which I find quite interesting. This is a significant leap forward from the traditional WIMP interaction model. All of these considerations allow for a more Human centered design focus, just as it should be; after all, this is the purpose of UI Engineering.
“We are in the midst of a revolution across a variety of screens”
You may recall first hearing the notion of a “Multiscreen Revolution” during the keynote at Max 2010. If you take a moment and think about it that’s a rather profound statement, and by all apparent indications a very true one.
This is also how Kevin Lynch, CTO at Adobe, begins his recent article, aptly titled “The Multiscreen Revolution” in which Kevin provides a succinct breakdown covering the driving forces behind this revolution and how it is guiding the future of the Flash Platform.
Allow me to digress for a moment as, in a way, for me at least, the “Multiscreen Revolution” tends to conjure up the hypothetical notion of a Multiverse. This may be a suitable analogy I suppose as we have been focused in a predominantly Personal Computer based reality for many years, and while this remains relevant, it is no longer exclusive.
I have been giving a lot of thought lately regarding designing software in a multi form factor paradigm and felt I would share some initial thoughts on the subject. Keep in mind much of this is still quite new and subject to change; however, I have made an attempt to isolate what I feel will remain constant moving forward, particularly in the context of developing native applications with the Flash Platform across a variety of screens.
First, User Experience Design
My initial thoughts on the implications of what a Multiscreen paradigm will have on the way we think about the design of software are primarily concerned with User Experience Design (UX Design). While simply using CSS3 media queries to facilitate dynamic runtime layouts will be needed for most HTML based web applications, I do not believe these types of solutions alone will allow for the kinds of compelling experiences users have come to expect. Sure they are useful, and for some HTML based websites they may suffice. However, in the context of more complex applications, RIAs in particular, but also just about every application developed specifically for a PC, too, I believe UX Design will need to encompass the best of what a particular form factor, “screen” or whatever you prefer to call it, has to offer, be it a PC, smartphone, tablet or TV.
For example, it is extremely rare that a UX Design intended for users of a PC will translate directly to a Mobile or Tablet User Experience. The interactions of a traditional physical keyboard and mouse do not equate to those of soft keys, virtual keyboards and touch gesture interactions. Moreover, the navigation and transitions between different views and even certain concepts and metaphors are completely different. In simplest terms; it’s not “Apples to Apples”, as the expression goes.
With this in mind, UX Design should remain at the forefront of Software Design, and in order for that to happen UX Design will not only need to continue to reflect the needs of users, but also by leverage the capabilities of the particular devices and screens on which an application will run. This is necessary as it better serves the needs of users in new and useful ways. Likewise, UX Design will need to account for the limitations (resources in particular) of those same form factors.
Second, Architecture
Mulitiscreen design obviously poses some new challenges considering the growing number of form factors which will need to be taken into account. The good news is most existing well designed software architectures have been designed with this in mind all along. That is, the key factor in managing this complexity I believe will be code reuse. A common theme amongst many of my posts, code reuse has many obvious benefits, and in the context of Multiscreen concerns it will allow for different screen specific applications to leverage general, well defined and well tested APIs. Code reuse will certainly be of tremendous value when considering the complexities encountered with Multiscreen design. Such shared APIs can be reused across applications which are designed for particular screens or extended to provide screen / device specific implementations.
For example, the Architectures I have worked on are designed such that each is broken out into specific modules (libraries) which, on a high level, are typically as follows:
unittesting-support: Provides convenience extensions of unit testing and mock frameworks.
commons: Provides all generic, reusable APIs which have no dependencies outside of those of the Flex Framework and Flash Player API.
framework-support: Provides reusable extensions of a particular framework. There can be multiple framework-support libraries, each of which would be specific to an individual framework; e.g. parsley-support, swiz-support, robotlegs-support, cairngorm-support, springactionscript-support etc.
business: Provides domain dependent, business specific reusable APIs which are common amongst all projects within the business domain. This includes domain models, shared services, Presentation Models, UI components and anything else which is specific to the business domain. While all of the previously listed libraries could be used with any AS3 / Flex project, the business library is intentionally coupled to the domain.
All of the above projects are used by the different business applications, allowing for significantly reduced complexity of each individual application. Moreover, each library provides isolated test coverage which allows for a greater sense of confidence when building applications which are dependent on them. This type of structure also lends itself well with common SCM and build conventions, allowing for simplified branching and versioning.
Architectures designed similar to what I have described above I would consider to be “multiscreen ready” (provided they are optimized and efficient) in that much of the underlying implementation has already been completed, tested and proven. What’s left is the mobile, tablet or TV application designs which should be mainly concerned with UX, particularly interactions, navigation and device capabilities. From these screen specific UX Designs the application architecture is mainly focused around view concerns specific to those devices; leveraging the existing APIs as needed. This is where the Presentation Model Pattern (which I have been recommending for years) or similar patterns will be of great value.
I also anticipate additional libraries being abstracted in addition to those I have listed above as a result of these device specific projects being developed. For example, I could easily imagine “device-support”, “mobile-support” and “tablet-support” projects which would provide reusable APIs specific for those screens so as to be leveraged across applications. In fact, I am working on libraries such as these at the moment.
Reusable libraries are nothing new; however, their role now is perhaps even more important as it is quite likely that multiple implementations of the same application will be needed for the various form factors and contexts. Existing reusable libraries may also need to be further optimized to provide the best performance against the slowest devices in order to be considered suitable for devices with the most limited resources. A natural side effect of such optimizations is that implementations of an application targeting the fastest form factors (typically, PCs) will benefit greatly.
Some Concluding Thoughts
In short, I believe both users and developers alike will be best served by providing unique User Experiences for specific screens as opposed to attempting to adapt the same application across multiple screens. One of the easiest ways of managing the complexity of multiscreen design and development will inevitably be code reuse.
I also believe the main point of focus should be on the medium and small form factors; i.e. Tablets and Smart phones. Not only for the more common reasons but, also because I believe PCs and Laptops will eventually be used almost exclusively for developing the applications which run on the other form factors. In fact, I can say this from my own experiences already.
While there is still much to learn in the area of Multiscreen Design, I feel the ideas I’ve expressed here will remain relevant. Over the course of the coming months I plan to dedicate much of my time towards further exploration of this topic and will certainly continue to share my findings.
The Web Timing Specification (draft) aims at providing a standard set of APIs which allow for true end-to-end instrumentation of page load times across browsers.
To quote the w3 spec: “This specification (Web Timing Specification) defines an interface for web applications to access timing information related to navigation and elements.” The API is based on the Navigation Timing and Resource Timing interfaces, respectively.
While I haven’t seen this specification mentioned as part of the HTML5 Family before, in many ways I would consider it to be a worthy candidate for membership as it provides a standards based API through which web applications can be tested for load efficiency. This is obviously something quite useful for any web application as, the ability to precisely measure page load times – and implement optimizations as needed – affords developers the opportunity to provide an improved user experience.
Historically, the ability to accurately measure page load times of web applications has been quite challenging for a number reasons. Just knowing when and where to begin is debatable and, determining the best means of doing so can be a challenge in of itself. Regardless of any current strategies being used, the result is never entirely accurate. With Web Timing developers need not be concerned with these specifics as the API provides the ability to truly measure page load times by encompassing the full scope of loading and parsing a page. This includes the time involved to request, receive and render an HTML document.
For more information, try out the examples in the current supported browsers; IE9, Chrome 6.
“If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself.” – Henry Ford
The HTML5 Family has been receiving considerable coverage lately; and, rightfully so, as, many next generation browsers – specifically those in the Mobile space based on WebKit: Android, iPhone, iPad, Blackberry etc. are now beginning to implement it’s specification, or parts thereof. On the Desktop more HTML5 support is also being seen in the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, IE9 and Opera.
The HTML5 Family of technologies will without question play a vital role in the future of the web; and currently, in the mobile Web space, that future is now.
A Brief Overview of the HTML5 Family
For anyone who is unfamiliar with what has been termed “The HTML5 Family“, allow me to provide succinct overview of the technologies which I feel encompass what has already become a rather overloaded term. In general, on a very high level, I would summarize the HTML5 Family simply as follows:
HTML5
CSS3
JavaScript
While the above could be considered the umbrella Technologies upon which The HTML5 Family is based, there are certainly more associated technologies which themselves further augment what could be considered the HTML5 Family, some of which are (based on current specification status at the time of this writing ):
Microdata
Geolocation API
Device APIs
Web Storage (localStorage, sessionStorage) APIs
Web SQL Database API
Web Workers API
Web Sockets API
HTML5
First, HTML5. HTML5 is the next major revision of HTML which aims to advance the open Web through web standards and semantically rich content. HTML5 defines an emphasis on semantic structure and meaning.
In general, HTML5 provides a content model which can be broadly defined into the following categories: Metadata content, Flow content, Sectioning content, Heading content, Phrasing content, Embedded content and Interactive content as well as form-associated elements etc.. HTML5 defines new tags such as canvas, audio, video, keygen, header, footer, nav, article, aside, datalist and more.
Explaining what JavaScript is may seem like a moot point as it is the language of the browser and therefore, the language of the web. However, it is important to outline some key underlying specifics of the language. In particular, JavaScript is a dynamic, prototypal, object-oriented scripting language. Its prototypal nature is quite different from the classical concepts of traditional object oriented languages. In order to get the most out of the language one needs to understand and embrace prototypalism and dynamism. Many of JavaScript’s true potential can be mistakenly overshadowed by it’s assumed design flaws; however, this needn’t be the case. As long as one understands the fundamental concepts of the language, it’s true potential can be realized to enrich development and allow for a level of expressiveness unmatched in type-safe languages.
Microdata
HTML5 Microdata provides a mechanism which allows machine-readable data to be embedded in HTML documents in the form of annotations, with an unambiguous parsing model. Microdata is compatible with numerous data formats such as JSON. Micro-data is intended to provide a standard to replace other similar concepts such as RDFa, from which browsers and other applications can discover relevant content based on the context of an applications markup. Such examples include markup for contact information, calendar events and more. This markup is understood by HTML5 compatible browsers which can then automatically offer to add the relevant content to the appropriate application. At an implementation level, microdata simply consists of a group of name-value pairs; with the groups being called items, and each name-value pair is a property.
Geolocation API
The HTML5 Geolocation API is rather straightforward; it simply provides a means by which the location of a device can be determined via a native API (as opposed to say, determining the clients IP address). The Geolocation spec is currently in last call status in the W3C.
Device APIs
Device APIs are client-side APIs which allow for direct interaction with native device services such as a device Camera, Calendar, Contacts etc.
Web Storage API
The Web Storage API allows for the persistence of local (permanent) and session based (browser session) data on the client. The API for Web Storage is extremely simple as it is based upon simple Key / Value pairs; with which Keys are simply Strings. Each site contains its own separate storage area.
Web SQL Database
While not a part of the actual HTML5 specification, the Web SQL Database presents some extremely interesting possibilities within Web Applications. The Web SQL Database provides a set of APIs which allow for the manipulation of client-side databases using SQL. The Web SQL Database is based upon SQLite (3.1.19) thus supporting the features as specified therein.
Web Workers API
Web Workers provide a mechanism by which web content can execute scripts in background threads. Web Workers allow for a much needed multi-threaded implementation for web based applications executing in a browser. While somewhat similar, Web Workers are different from threads in that they are primarily intended for executing long running, expensive computations and algorithms so as to facilitate non-blocking UI background processes. One specific aspect of Web Workers which has considerable positive implications for the web moving forward is that they run in native threads as opposed to Green Threads; as is the case in VM architectures. This is quite significant as it essentially means Web Workers can scale vertically. Considering the inevitable proliferation of multi-core desktop and mobile devices, this is certainly something that will prove advantageous.
Web Sockets API
Web Sockets provide native, full-duplex communications channels which operate over a single socket that enables HTML5 compliant browsers to use the WebSocket protocol (exposed via a JavaScript API) for two-way communication with a remote host.
If you are interested in learning more about each of these technologies I recommend the following resources:
Moving forward, I plan to go into further detail for each of these associated HTML5 Family technologies, providing working examples and detailed information as to how each can be utilized to create some very unique and interesting possibilities on the Web.