Mobile - Eric Feminella

AT&T Best Practices Guide for App Development

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.

AT&T Research Labs: Mobile Application Resources

Build Efficient Apps
Profiling Resource Usage for Mobile Applications: A Cross-layer Approach

Comments Off

Configuring iOS HTTP Monitoring

When developing Web Applications for the Mobile Web Experience it is often useful to have a clear view into all HTTP requests and responses sent between the client and server. This is quite simple to accomplish when developing Web Applications for the Desktop as, the browser is running locally so any standard HTTP Monitor will suffice. And, while it is a normal part of a typical development workflow to run an application locally the majority of the time, testing on each target device is obviously an essential part of the process as well.

Luckily, with Charles, on iOS this is quite simple to accomplish.

Configuration

To configure Charles to proxy all requests from an iOS device, simply follow these basic steps:

From your iOS Device, open Settings.
Go to Wi-Fi, select your Network and select the Blue “arrow” icon.
Scroll to HTTP Proxy and select the Manual Button.
In the Server field, enter the IP address of your development machine.
In the port field, enter port 8888 (the default port to which Charles binds).
Leave Authentication set to Off.

And that’s all there is to it. Now, open Mobile Safari and go to your Web Application’s URL (or any page on the web for that matter). On your development machine, in Charles you will receive a prompt with the IP Address of your Mobile Device, click “Allow” and you are all set. When you are done working, make sure to turn off HTTP Proxy on your device.

Additional Note

While this article may be focused on Mobile Web Applications, these same configurations apply to all HTTP traffic from any application on your device that requires resources over the web.

December 16, 2011 Browsers

Comments Off

DHTMLX Touch 1.0 Released

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.

And so, if you haven’t already, check it out.

November 23, 2011 HTML5 / JavaScript

Comments Off

Test Driven Javascript with QUnit

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.

Why QUnit?

While there are quite a few good JavaScript Unit Testing Frameworks available, Jasmine in particular, I have found QUnit to best suit my particular needs for implementing Test Driven Development in JavaScript based on it’s clean design and practical implementation.

A Simple, Powerful API

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.");

});

Figure 1 (run) (source)

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).

September 19, 2011 CSS3 / HTML5 / JavaScript / Refactoring / Software Engineering / TDD / BDD / UX Design

1 Comment

A Step Backwards In Usability?

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

May 30, 2011 News / UX Design

Comments Off

Ergonomics of Mobile Touchscreen Design

Dan Saffer has published an interesting article illustrating the Activity Zones for Touchscreen Tablets and Phones which appear to provide the most natural level of 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.

March 9, 2011 UX Design

Comments Off