Talk:Progressive web app

Computing: Software / Websites C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as Mid-importance).

Firefox Nightly

Firefox Nightly has decent support for service workers too. Might we worth mentioning that.

Firefox Nightly is a moving target, as the name implies. What features it has, change from one day to another. Eventually, all the browsers should support this, in a consistent way.OsamaBinLogin (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links to CanIUse and Is Service Worker Ready? are better than listing support for features by browser.

Term "Progressive web app"

Correct me if i'm wrong but has the term "Progressive web app" been hijacked?

A progressive web application for me used to mean an application that provides more features depending on whether it was supported by the user's device / browser. i.e progressive enhancement.

We have always had progressive web applications by implementing new features when supported / possible.

For example, detecting whether the user's device has a camera and providing a feature that uses it.

It still applies to providing the ability for an application to have a native app look and feel but developing web applications specifically for native-like experiences is not the definition of a "progressive web app" in my books.

Maybe I should be using the term "Progressively Enhanced Web App" instead?

In either case my two cents would be that the definition of a 'Progressive Web App' is not limited to supporting native experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.98.58 (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, progressive enhancement is the term I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:B39A:9596:7E7E:1022:8AAE (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it's been hijacked. It has a general meaning, like you say, a web app that's progressive, using the latest features, any given year's features.

Rich Internet Applications (RIA) is an older name for a standalone app that's internally implemented using "web" technology - although really they seemed to use proprietary platforms like Shockwave Flash or Silverlight that are typically used in web pages.

HTML5 includes features that start to work towards having standalone apps implemented but as of this writing (aug 2017) they're not ready for prime time. That is what they're talking about in this article. I'll try to make some corrections. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't hijacked the term. "Progressive web app" is a new term, coined in 2015 and gained momentum in 2016. It is related, but not the same as "Progressive enhancement" which are sites that improve certain aspects given that the browser supports the required technology. If the browser doesn't, the site will still have the features, but in cruder manner. The first example I can think of is Gmail which you can use with javascript turned off unlike many sites the require javascript or they will not do anything at all. And PWA is more than just looking like a web app. It's technology that allows the web app to, amongst other things,

run while offline
run in the background even when the browser isn't
deliver notifications even when the browser isn't active

--139.112.164.36 (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green lines in the lists of apps

What does the green background mean on some of the apps in the 2 lists near the bottom? Nick (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History

"Since around 2005 web development technologies have shifted from static to dynamic web pages driven by server (PHP, ASP.NET) or client side ( Ajax[1] ) tools, and responsive web design.[2]"

Where does 2005 come from? Even in the linked article by Ethan Marcotte I can't see a clear statement about when such "shift" occurred. I can't think of any mainstream website in the late 90s which didn't heavily rely on server-side scripting.

Kijuhy (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed list of PWA test scores

I removed the table of benchmark scores for the following reasons:

1. There are too many PWAs online to list all of them in the article
2. WP:N The PWAs in the list do not meet requirement of Notability because they lack any independent coverage
3. WP:NOR The whole list is not verifiable because it is original research
4. The benchmark scores fluctuate a lot widely as tests are changed, added, or removed. The results are not verifiable.
5. The whole table is not useful to anyone for all the aforementioned reasons.

The page might benefit from a list of notable businesses and services that offer PWA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.bersh (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "apps" in lede

It would be beneficial to include the term "apps" in the lede. While web applications are not the only form of apps, for the general reader there is usually not an understanding that web and native applications are the "apps" that they are most familiar with.

I propose the following (changes in bold) for the lede to make this relationship clear without confusing the technical specifics:

Progressive web applications (PWAs) are web pages or websites that function as web applications, with an experience identical to a native application on a mobile device. Functionality includes working offline, push notifications, and device hardware access. While both PWAs and native applications can function as mobile apps, with PWAs there is no requirement for developers or users to go through digital distribution systems like the App Store or Google Play.

- Seazzy (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'd also mention that PWAs are built with web technologies like HTML, JS, CSS instead of native languages like Java or Kotlin on Android and Objectiv-C or Swift on iOS.Anton.bersh (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Used "mobile apps" to clarify, included HTML, CSS, js info. - Seazzy (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing wording in the article

The article needs some editing to fix factual errors. E.g., it states "At the launch of the iPhone in 2007, Steve Jobs announced that web apps, written using Web 2.0 and AJAX (later known as HTML5), would be the standard format for iPhone apps," however (1) Web 2.0 is not a technology, rather an idea that web should be more "social" and focus on user-generated content and (2) AJAX is a architecture of building pages that can update without full page reload and (3) HTML5 is an actual standard/technology.Anton.bersh (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes. @Anton.bersh:, would you take a look and make any necessary corrections? -Seazzy (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing technologies sections

The technologies section has a number of subcategories that both have no citations and have only one or two sentences describing their relevance. I propose condensing them under an "Other technologies" subcategory. These would include: PouchDB, RxDB, GunDB, Hood.ie and any subsequent technologies that have some relevance but do not warrant a full subsection.

I would also recommend removing the web worker subsection entirely, as the service worker is a type of web worker that is a PWA requirement. - Seazzy (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this information does not belong to this article, I think it should be moved to a separate one because:

1. Information about these libraries might be helpful for someone looking to build a PWA, but is not really encyclopedic and is not necessary for understanding what a PWA is and how it functions (which technologies are accessible). In its core, every of these libraries either uses pure JS (in-memory database) or relies on IndexedDB. None of them enable any more functionality that would not be achievable without them; in contrast, Web Storage enables simple key-value store and IndexedDB enables large volume storage and each is crucial for some types of PWAs.

2. WP:N I could not find any third-party sources about PouchDB, RxDB, GunDB, Hood.ie and therefore believe they do not meet notability requirement. I believe a stand-alone list of database libraries might be better fitting for them. I propose moving them to a separate list, somehing similar to CSS framework, but for databases. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for more information.

3. I'm not sure what are the criteria for selecting these libraries among others. E.g, I searched for "js database" and on the first page found http://taffydb.com/, http://lokijs.org/, stewd.io/, on the second page I saw https://www.rethinkdb.com/, https://alasql.org/ and others. Which of these libraries are more relevant to the PWA? I believe none of them are relevant to this article specifically in the same way none of CSS framework libraries are relevant to this article.

Anton.bersh (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RethinkDB is written in C++. RxDB and GunDB as an example offer a lot of functionalities, who are not present without them.

They may be not used very much in this regard, while this is no technical limitation, just a cultural.

As you said, this is useful for potential developers and this is, most importantly, how a significant amount of people using

an encyclopedia. Do you think limiting the usage of Wikipedia based on our own preferences is correct?

ShalokShalom (talk)