One factor may be that an app gives the developer full control of the client experience. If your web server application has to support a myriad of browsers, browser versions, browser addons, browser addon versions it could be quite challenging to make your site functional. Really clever developers might take that on as a personal challenge and puzzle to solve but corporations will not entertain such things.
I think the best one could do would be to contribute to a Hall Of Fame of websites that work well with cell phone browsers and create an icon legend that lists what addons are known to interfere with that site.
Beyond that maybe contributions to the next HTML6/7 specifications that which makes writing code that is more compatible with cell phone browsers and addons, giving more control to the client while keeping the site functional even when using addons. i.e. extensions in the spec that addons can utilize to better understand context and intention.
Why would a solid designed web page, using valid HTML, CSS and only a minimum of JS, for extended functionality, be a cross browser, or even browser extension problem? These only come up, when you start to use JS for everything, instead of doing proper web development, IMHO. You do not have to be exceptionally smart to do this, you just have to know your trade, and must not fell to all that enerving animated wanna-be-impressive stuff some think would be great design.
As, if you think of these pages done by web designers, which have no real clue how to do stuff, but instead want to show how 'great design' they can do and how great it would be if the whole page moves around all the time, letting you wait for content to load (very) lazy, instead of just delivering it, OK, but a solid developed web page?
And stuff like games come with well tested JS frameworks, where you (should) have no problems if you do not start to fiddle around with required 3rd party cookies, blocking non-referer-sending requests, and other senseless stuff.
Comments
One factor may be that an app gives the developer full control of the client experience. If your web server application has to support a myriad of browsers, browser versions, browser addons, browser addon versions it could be quite challenging to make your site functional. Really clever developers might take that on as a personal challenge and puzzle to solve but corporations will not entertain such things.
I think the best one could do would be to contribute to a Hall Of Fame of websites that work well with cell phone browsers and create an icon legend that lists what addons are known to interfere with that site.
Beyond that maybe contributions to the next HTML6/7 specifications that which makes writing code that is more compatible with cell phone browsers and addons, giving more control to the client while keeping the site functional even when using addons. i.e. extensions in the spec that addons can utilize to better understand context and intention.
Why would a solid designed web page, using valid HTML, CSS and only a minimum of JS, for extended functionality, be a cross browser, or even browser extension problem? These only come up, when you start to use JS for everything, instead of doing proper web development, IMHO. You do not have to be exceptionally smart to do this, you just have to know your trade, and must not fell to all that enerving animated wanna-be-impressive stuff some think would be great design. As, if you think of these pages done by web designers, which have no real clue how to do stuff, but instead want to show how 'great design' they can do and how great it would be if the whole page moves around all the time, letting you wait for content to load (very) lazy, instead of just delivering it, OK, but a solid developed web page?
And stuff like games come with well tested JS frameworks, where you (should) have no problems if you do not start to fiddle around with required 3rd party cookies, blocking non-referer-sending requests, and other senseless stuff.
I completely agree with everything you said. I think the people that should chime here in should be product/project managers.