Page 2 of 2

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:37 pm UTC
by possum888
It's worse when you're asked to download an app for a website, which takes you to the App Store where you then find that the app hasn't been made available to your country.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:29 am UTC
by Jean2
Whenever you visit a forum you have the chance of getting nagged every time to install an app. In fact it seems some forum software come with the plugin preinstalled, unless they disable it in the config. Which most people wont because they want to announce that their forum support that app, and it only costs 3 dollars. Then people who buy it will automatically post a signature that it's sent from their android phone with ACME Corp app, unless of course they turn it off in a configuration setting.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:58 am UTC
by bmonk
peshmg wrote:This happens to me every time I try to go to Google Plus from a mobile browser. I already have the app, but sometimes I prefer to use the browser (especially if I'm going from one of my other Google accounts).

It would be nice if the page would notice that you already have the app installed and assume that you didn't go to the webpage in the browser by mistake.

On the other hand, for some reason Android recently stopped opening address links in the Google Maps app and instead opens them in the browser. WTF??

Some update checkers are stupid. And incomplete. My sister once nearly allowed an auto-upgrade to function, but happened to notice that it was about to "upgrade" her 7.0 version to 6.5--so she stopped it and wrote a nasty note to the software company about the need to compare version numbers before they offer upgrades . . .

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:22 am UTC
by ijuin
Pfhorrest wrote:Of course, having worked as a web designer and developer, I know the real problem is that PHBs and clients demand that something looks exactly some way on one specific device, and don't care that that design decision sabotages the ability to fluidly reflow the layout on different devices. Then they come around later and wonder why we don't have a "mobile version" of the site, and don't want to hear that making the site appropriate for mobile devices was part of the objection to their earlier decrees...

Even worse is when the PHBs want it to look EXACTLY the same on all displays without regard to screen resolution, and then complain that the text is too small to read on small screens.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:04 pm UTC
by Jinxed
faunablues wrote:Oh man, this problem... I don't get how we can have had smartphones so long yet there's so many sites that either have terrible mobile versions or terrible apps. Some of the "apps" are just identical to the mobile site (why create an app?). Or even Facebook where viewing an update on a group thread directed you to the main group page with no indication of which thread (terrible on popular pages)... and this was until a couple months ago.

Or! When you're redirected to the mobile site and can't get to the regular site, and the mobile site is incomplete or doesn't work or arrrgh

The facebook app for Android (2.2) is the worst, where liking a status or anything sends you to the mobile site for no reason, another huge WTF in the mobile game.

Steve the Pocket wrote:And he actually uses the term "alt-text". Some geek he turned out to be.

The term alt-text makes since, as it's a secondary, alternate text or comment for the comic. The term title-text makes no sense at all, it seems as if that would be referring to the title of the comic.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:18 pm UTC
by Willl
Morgan Wick wrote:Ideally, an app should be programmed such that you don't need to zoom the way you have to with some sites.

Assuming Randall has been inside my head when coming up with this comic (and I'm pretty sure he was) he's talking about sites serving content that always benefits from zooming - most notably, photos. Twitter is a prime culprit in this field... their mobile site (not their Android app though) renders photos permanently at 100% of whatever the viewport width was when the page loaded, even if you then switch to landscape mode.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:47 am UTC
by Arariel
Jinxed wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:And he actually uses the term "alt-text". Some geek he turned out to be.

The term alt-text makes since, as it's a secondary, alternate text or comment for the comic. The term title-text makes no sense at all, it seems as if that would be referring to the title of the comic.

Title text refers to the HTML attribute of 'title' in the <image> tag. The alt-text is the text that appears if the image is unable to render.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:53 am UTC
by speising
Arariel wrote:
Jinxed wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:And he actually uses the term "alt-text". Some geek he turned out to be.

The term alt-text makes since, as it's a secondary, alternate text or comment for the comic. The term title-text makes no sense at all, it seems as if that would be referring to the title of the comic.

Title text refers to the HTML attribute of 'title' in the <image> tag. The alt-text is the text that appears if the image is unable to render.


that's a perfect example of an engineers answer (mind, i'm one myself). completely correct, but completely beside the point from a users perspective.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:37 am UTC
by TheMadMoose
I liked this comic so much I guessed the subdomain of the forums (there's no link on xkcd), made an account found this thread and posted.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:17 am UTC
by elasto
speising wrote:that's a perfect example of an engineers answer (mind, i'm one myself). completely correct, but completely beside the point from a users perspective.

Hence the comment: "Some geek he turned out to be."

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:45 pm UTC
by ManaUser
Isn't it ironic that the so-called "alt-text" is actually in the title attribute, and the comic's title is stored in the alt attribute?

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:34 am UTC
by Steve the Pocket
The "Yes"/"No but keep asking me every time" part is a decent gag in itself, because I've encountered sites that do this for other things. Usually connecting with Facebook, which I'm sure they're paid to keep bugging users to do.

Jinxed wrote:The term alt-text makes since, as it's a secondary, alternate text or comment for the comic. The term title-text makes no sense at all, it seems as if that would be referring to the title of the comic.

That's a pretty flimsy justification for using a term that already means something (see below) to refer to something completely different. For the record...

Arariel wrote:Title text refers to the HTML attribute of 'title' in the <image> tag. The alt-text is the text that appears if the image is unable to render.

..."title text" is a stupid term too (and "title" was a stupid thing to call the attribute in the first place) because of how nondescriptive it is. "Mouseover caption" makes more sense, or "pop-up caption", or even "Easter egg" since that's sort of how it's used. I don't know what you would call it on a site specifically designed to make it appear without mousing over it, and which refers to it explicitly on the page. Ideally, nothing, because ideally there wouldn't be a special "mobile" site, because the site would already be designed to accommodate mobile users. There are ways.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:16 am UTC
by SchighSchagh
I don't think this has been mentioned, but what the heck did Randall scribble before the "://" in the url?? It sure as hell isn't "http".

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:46 am UTC
by Arariel
Steve the Pocket wrote:..."title text" is a stupid term too (and "title" was a stupid thing to call the attribute in the first place) because of how nondescriptive it is. "Mouseover caption" makes more sense, or "pop-up caption", or even "Easter egg" since that's sort of how it's used. I don't know what you would call it on a site specifically designed to make it appear without mousing over it, and which refers to it explicitly on the page. Ideally, nothing, because ideally there wouldn't be a special "mobile" site, because the site would already be designed to accommodate mobile users. There are ways.

'Tooltip' is fairly concise, accurate, unambiguous, and accepted.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:55 am UTC
by webgiant
Arariel wrote:
exoren22 wrote:
dvandom wrote:Ironically, the only way I can get full functionality from XKCD's page on a mobile device is to use the app. Because hovertext and tablets/phones don't mix.

---Dave


Try [url]m.xkcd.com[/url]

edit: linky

edit2: I used the URL button, what gives?

http://m.xkcd.com

Anyone know of that/an online service where you can see how your website would look on a mobile device? I'm away from my iPad and want to see what the mobile version of xkcd looks like.

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:42 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
So, in the last couple of days, a couple of my installed programs have released updates. Both times, one of the installation screens was the "Install these browser addons from our sponsor to slow down your computer, change your homepage, and make your existing browsing habits infeasible" page that requires you to manually uncheck each option to avoid installing them... this time.

It's even worse if you click through - while they're easily installed, uninstalling them is a major undertaking...

Re: 1174: "App"

Posted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:39 pm UTC
by Hafting
I guess I am lucky. After reading other posts, I understand this problem that I fortunately not yet have experienced. An app to view a web page? Odd idea. The sites I visit seems to work fine on android devices too. But then, it is mostly open-source sites/forums, a few newspapers and wikipedia. Well, my phone has a "facebook" app, but since I don't use "social media", I never tried it. . .