Hacker News Reader

Comment by xxprogamerxy | Hacker News Reader

Simple, UX.

The reality is, most webapps for mobile just suck. The UX is nowhere near that of a native application. I don't want any text to be selectable. I don't want pull to refresh on every page. I don't want the left-swipe to take me to the previous page.

You can probably find workarounds for all these issues. The new Silk library (https://silkhq.co/) is the first case I've seen that get's very close to a native experience. But even the fact that this is a paid library comes to show how non-trivial this is.

View on HN

>I don't want any text to be selectable. I don't want pull to refresh on every page. I don't want the left-swipe to take me to the previous page.

Strange. This inability to select any text has always felt like one of the most hostile things developers could ever do. It feels like pure vandalism.

Another thing that causes massive productivity degradation is not being able to keep multiple pages open so you can come back to some state. I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly use these apps for any serious work.

The UX of almost all native mobile apps is absolute crap. But it's not their nativeness that makes them crap. I'm not complaining about the idea of operating systems offering non-portable but high performance UI primitives that make use of OS facilities.

Many native desktop apps don't have these UX issues (at least not all of them at the same time). It's the mobile UX patterns, conventions and native UI frameworks that are causing this catastrophic state of affairs.

Inability to select text is a pain in the ass when you're midway through learning the language and only wants to translate certain parts. In native apps it's understood (app makers don't really give a shit about me), but when it's in websites it's like a slap in the face :)

Yeah, the app model of one page open at a time ever is such bad UX. Huge regression from the web. Funnily enough you get around it on an app like Reddit by opening pages in the web browser.

Also, if my memory serves, native MacOS apps by default support selecting most text that isn’t part of a clickable element like a button.

No, that's absolutely not the case, and it would be very odd and disturbing.

I think it's an accessibility option that also makes navigating with the tab key more useful.

On modern mobile and desktop operating systems, you can always copy that portion of the screen to the clipboard and it will recognize the text so you can paste it anywhere.

I’ve noticed that apps can tell when you’re taking a screenshot and often will pop up a little message first which appears in the screenshot.

Reddit on iOS was one that did it.

No you can't.

Even if you could (which you can't, at least on my, modern, phone), it would be a workaround, not a solution.

A solution would be allowing free selection like in the browser or, better yet, ditching "native" apps for web apps, as the person above suggested. As a bonus, this "exodus" will force browser makers to iron out any UX issues very quickly.

Every time I try to select a single word in a WhatsApp message I surprised for a second. It’s so strange that most apps that have text as their fundamental content don’t allow you to do this.

> Strange. This inability to select any text has always felt like one of the most hostile things developers could ever do. It feels like pure vandalism.

Use Circle to Search? Native capability that works on every single app, and is close to perfect (with the exception of handling text at the very bottom/top of your screen that's covered by your navbar/Google logo).

To be fair, browser apps do have their advantages:

- text is selectable

- content is zoomable

- you can have an ad/nuisance blocker

- page source is open

While native apps have their own advantages:

- much smoother experience esp. navigation, scrolling, animations, etc.

- better overall performance (JavaScript will always lose to the native binary)

- access to hardware opens new possibilities; audio, video accelerators etc.; there's a ton of things you can't do in the browser with audio for example

- widgets, some of them are nice and useful too

- for publishers: an app icon on the home screen is a reminder, a "hook" of sorts; this is the main reason they push apps over web versions

All the features you mentioned can also be achieved by a well developed PWA. Of course, minus the widgets or some deeper system integration (like controlling phone calls etc.)

Try to build a more or less serious music synth in the browser that won’t kill your battery.

Heh, I was actually building one. Haven't considered the battery... Are the web audio APIs bad, or are you forced to use the CPU? I guess with webgpu it may be easier?

I think on iOS you need access on the CoreAudio level if you want to be efficient, ie fill audio buffers on a high priority thread with some lower level static language.

Of course, I'm not saying that one size fits all.

There are cases like media apps, camera apps, videogames, terminal emulators, clipboard managers etc. that won't become Web apps any time soon.

Either because they need to operate closer to the OS, or for performance expectation reasons.

But I've just had a quick scroll through the apps on my phone, and I can confidently say that 90% of them are basically HTTP clients that interact with an HTTP server.

And even those that do more could probably be wrapped into a WebAssembly artifact with comparable performance in a near future.

The reason why they are not PWAs, and why engineers are often expected to do triple work (iOS, Android, Web), and why there aren't more products released as PWAs, keeps eluding me.

Sure, you have to tell folks how the "Install/Add to home screen" process works from a mobile browser, but is it that really that much more friction compared to an App Store paradigm to justify the abuse of native apps that either reinvent the wheel multiple times, or are just unglorified Web browsers running an Electron app just to show you the discounts at the supermarket near your house?

> browser apps do have their advantages:

These are more like byproduct of the fact that web apps are built on the stack not suited for modern UI apps. It's literally a text typesetting engine pretending to be a rendering engine for high-performance UI.

So, it can also be framed as:

- everything is selectable, even what shouldn't be - buttons, drawers, video players, etc - content is zoomable, which most of the time just breaks UX in hilariuous ways. Developers have to do extra-work to either disable zoom or make hacks/workarounds.

"Everything is selectable" and "everything is zoomable" makes total sense if it's a blog post. If it's a UI for the modern app, it does not.

Disabling zoom is so hostile, why not disable screen readers and put bollards on handicapped ramps while you are at it. It’s literally a middle finger to older people and people with vision issues. If you disable zoom I will not be using your website.

Luckly most popular operating systems have concept of global text size that can be adjusted, and non-web UI frameworks respect that.

> It's literally a text typesetting engine pretending to be a rendering engine for high-performance UI

This is an outdated view of the web. Catch up or be left behind.

This is factual view. No matter how many layers of abstraction you put on top, the foundation is always there. Luckily we have better and better support for wasm in browsers, so it's a matter of time when this outdated stack will be replaced with solutions designed from the ground up for the task.

Web just have defaults that are not suitable for apps. Disable text select is one line of css, not that hard.

+ working notifications - adblocker is more of a minus for publishers though

But mainly don't expect any good web app integration on mobile, because it would hit the store 30% tax.

As a user I usually want all of those features to work. I regularly get ticked off at apps, because I cannot copy paste like in the browser or the app just closes (and loses all state) because I tried to use the back button. I also encountered apps that just reset, because I dared switch to another app for a second because I wanted to copy paste something into it...

> I don't want any text to be selectable

Disabling text selection is not just worse UX, it is actively user-hostile

In Photoshop panels, title (like "Layers") are not selectable. How is it worse UX or user-hostile?

I have literally never needed to select text in a UX element.

In the past, occasionally there would be an error message in a message box dialog that I wanted to copy and paste. And then I discovered that despite it not looking selectable, it actually was.

I don't want to accidentally select the text of my menu bar, or of a text box label, or a dialog tab title.

I, I, I. Empathy is a weakness.

Lots of limitations for you to not accidentally do something, maybe there is a way to not accidentally do those things and also help people that need them.

No, not providing concrete examples is a weakness.

You're awfully arrogant in making a judgement about my empathy... if you want to make this personal.

Or maybe you can justify why people need to be able to select menu labels in the first place? That's not standard on any OS I've ever used, so it's up to the person who wants to change things to justify why.

Maybe be less judgmental of people here on HN, and contribute something factual instead? I at least gave a factual account of my personal experience, which is a data point. Describing one's experience isn't egoism.

A simple and concrete example is, go to Japan, find yourself in need of using any Japanese-only app, be extremely frustrated in not even being able to select text to translate it.

At least in recent versions of Android there is that OCR (?) powered functionality to select text when you're in switch-app view.

Thank you for the example!

I would suggest that these days you'd be much better off taking a screenshot and putting that into Google Translate.

That way all the text remains in-place, and you can keep it as a visual reference to refer to.

If you were selecting text, it would wind up in a kind of jumble that would be much harder to use.

Circle to Search can translate everything on your screen without you needing to go through the whole "copy text, open Translate, paste, switch back to app" workflow. You just hold the home button, then press the translate button.

It's worse on desktop. On mobile it just leads to accidental selection when you were trying to do something else.

Most apps for mobile suck too. A lot of them are worse because they are not in a web browser, eg YouTube or Reddit or similar apps that work via urls.

Browsers are some of the very few apps that work well on a phone. Most of the other ones feel like a mess (except games I guess).

Mmh, the examples you've listed are actually super easy to do if you're using a framework such as angular with it's plugins for pwa and touch controls. And prolly tailwind for css/disabling selection if you really want to, but I'd call that an anti feature in almost all cases.

In theory. In practice not so much.

I've had enough browser apps try that on my phone. Usually they start to lag out and become unbearably slow due to the framework bloat, compared to native apps that have no such issues.

You have to wonder about the motivations of the company making the browser that makes it impossible to disable some of these things, and therefore makes real apps so much superior (like swipe to go back on safari - I have never ever swiped back intentionally in over 100000 swipe backs).

“I have never wanted to type the letter ‘e’ in any of the 100,000 times I hit the ‘e’ key on the keyboard; it’s always felt suspicious to me why keyboards even have an ‘e’ key which can’t be disabled” said the perfectly normal hacker news commenter.

> I have never ever swiped back intentionally in over 100000 swipe backs

Real question here, what are you trying to do when you "swipe back"?

Dating apps.

By instinct I swipe back like I am in Safari, and that does something else in those.

Swipe UP

Touching something on the left side, like a link, and let my finger touch the glass a tiny bit too long while pulling the finger back. Unwanted swiping happens to me all the time in all directions - may the developers use a touch screen for everything forever!

This swipe thing violates one of the most basic ux principles by making a destructive action easily triggered by accident.

The "pull to refresh" is probably the most annoying one.

Other than that, I'd like text to be selectable! I don't like it when apps don't allow you to copy text.

I use Copy [1], and when that doesn't work I use the OCR text selection feature on my Pixel phone.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.weberdo.ap...

That's funny, I use Amazon on mobile web, my wife insists on the app.

Guess which one of us has way more problems, due to both functionality and a constantly changing layout?

UX is when you have less features - got it.

It doesn't sound like anything that a PWA (paired with some a sync mechanism like Websockets) can't solve. And with WebAssembly the convergence is even more compelling.

To go along with this UX argument: it’s always been my perception that native apps often lean towards a stateful design while web apps try for stateless. Maybe that’s too abstract (read - incorrect), but was always just where my intuition landed.

Nothing prevents fhe same UI being available in web though.

Iconic mirrors a lot of it, but Apple/google could have just as easily made them native components triggered in the browser

That is not an objection. Two decades of webapp progress instead of native app progress would have (and still would) addressed all of that.

webapp UIs suck because nobody cares about them. They could be a lot better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com