Chrome introduces Web App install banners
updates.html5rocks.com
updates.html5rocks.com
I'd really love it if Android implemented navigator.standalone, too - I do understand the reasons for not implementing it, but it's useful.
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/AppleA...
> The user has visited your site twice over two separate days during the course of two weeks.
This should help reduce the number of casual shitty sites that can make use of this - the user has to at least have a reasonable level of engagement before this triggers. It's far from foolproof but it is a promising start.
Yet another reason to tell your parents to buy iphones.
This is a twofold benefit for the sleezy company: Google gets paid directly by malware developers, and the added malware on people's computers helps drive consumers to switch to Chromebooks. The "rampant malware on Windows" problem is largely a Google creation, and of course, Google advocates their product as the solution.
I clicked both results for "flash player" and nothing on my computer (Mac) or in the browser (Chrome) warned me, whereas I have received warnings on other sites for "phishing attempts". I never would have downloaded anything from those sites, but my parents sure would have.
Who knows, if I were in a hurry and it was a program I wasn't familiar with or that I was trying to get for free? And if the site was more polished or a full html/css clone of the real site? It honestly might have worked on me.
What kind of malware do these bogus paid results contain? What would have happened if I'd installed them? What can you do to defend against that besides being a savvy web user?
Thanks for this. I learned something.
How is making it easier for developers to distribute apps on the open web "malware + cash"? It's more like balancing the risk of malware against the benefits of openness and encouraging web app development.
Sorry, not seeing the malware connection. There's no extra permissions granted here.
BTW I agree Google should do more to improve the security model of extensions and apps on the Chrome store. I shouldn't have to grant the right to see all content on all pages just to pretty-print JSON responses. But don't confuse today's announcement with Chrome Web Store apps or extensions. There could be convergence later, but so far it's just a rev on the Install To Home Screen feature that's been there on iOS since it began.
The user has to visit "your site twice over 2 separate days during the course of 2 weeks". Also a valid SSL certificate, service worker, and manifest file. We're definitely not in the 1990s with IE's AddFavorite() free-for-all anymore. :)
As a by-product of the service worker though, we really hope developers start building offline experiences.
The test site displays the banner fine, my site doesn't. Given how hard these things are to debug, a simple "banner checker" page that would tell you what you did wrong would be a great help.
Do usage stats indicate that a lot of people use this feature?
* It will only appear for sites you use regularly * It will only appear once per site, ever
Update: Fixed. Thanks.
Today I learned that W3C is using Github for working with specs. Nice!
That's certainly going with the times.
Sorry, what?
Great technology and potentially very helpful, but not the best choice for an example of where you'd use it.
Ideally, the website would have an install page, lead the willing user to it, let them click an install button, and done.
Spammers are everywhere, so you can't allow that. But from the user's point of view, heuristics make the browser look like random. If a user likes a web app, they expect it to be easily installable now. The website can't ask "please come back tomorrow" and menus don't work for the lay user ("Add to homescreen" is the 9th item out of 12 in Chrome's menu), otherwise the user leaves with the impression the web app is unnecessarily complicated.
Have you considered making the prompt full-page? It could say:
Would you like to install this app?
Kinlan's Amazing App
Website: kinlan.me
By: Kinlan Corp <-- this field is taken from EV certificates; hidden otherwise
[Add to homescreen] [Cancel]
[Mark as spam]
- "Mark as spam" raises awareness that the spam filter part of a user's brain should be put to use; it also changes the incentives for spammers as there is currently no downside to spam users;
- "Website" could be limited to the second-level domain because the bad guys use a deep subdomain a lot more than the first-class web app developers;
- the prompt would be shown when navigator.install() is called inside an onclick handler bound to a button (it's not a high bar for spammers but it's still a relief for users);
https://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=1...
> Not right now. We are working on ways to give developers the ability to cancel the display of the prompt. Follow our “Intent to Implement” on blink-dev mailing list.
Hahah, that's good. No-opt-out is always fun.
IndexedDB API as NoSQL API isn't that great to work with. Give some love to WebSQL or continue on a SQL API standard based on SQL-92 standard.
This will definitely augment UX for mobile devices.
As a software vendor, I used to have a lot of trouble getting my clients to switch away from IE, but I feel like that really has been changing. My clients are large GC firms and other kinds of construction companies (infamous for being behind the times when it comes to technology) and I had >80% of them on Chrome 6 months ago. Have you tried telling them that even Microsoft dropped support for WinXP and IE8 a year ago? (I think it happened last April.)
> Have you tried telling them... They know. They are the purse holders, not the brain holders.
(unrelated side note: looks like someone is disappointed that I have clients on down-rev browsers)