Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1.    #1  
    Just the like subject line says.
    Considering how much we use the internet with the WebOS phones, you would think a 100% compliant browser would be at the top of the list. Second would be the flash support.

    -issues to be fixed....memory leaks in the browser (current as of 1.3.5.1)

    The acid3 test only gets to about 77% and thats only if I tap the screen error boxes so that they go away. Other than that it will stop at around 55%.

    I spoke to some web designers about making their sites mobile friendly and they didn't want to put in the extra effort. They commented that if the browser was more compliant in the smart phones, then they could just tweak the graphic load rather than redesign and create a whole secondary site for mobile devices.

    And NO I don't want to have to load an app for every darn site there is, *cause its just easier to read*....sigh...

    I'm no web designer, but why the heck is it so hard to make the browser acid3 compliant. Is there issues with the WebOS lacking some of the necessary support in the OS or something???....

    I'm hoping 1.4 is everything they said AND a compliant browser, because the next thing up will be people noticing they still can't run/see flash content on sites because it is displayed incorrectly/missing or some other obscure error resulting from lack of compliance.

    Another strange thing...this isn't a M$ product and it is supposedly based on current Web tech, so why isn't it complaint from the ground up? It's not like they had to use or build the WebOS on some old incompatible software.
  2. #2  
    At this point, there's very little benefit/ROI to spend the time to get 100% Acid3 passing. Mobile Safari comes close, then webOS IIRC. All other mobile browsers fall far short.

    Palm is making small steps to improve the webOS browser, which in turn, helps it score better in Acid3. With the release of 1.3.5 the results went from below 33% to over 50%, so it's getting better...slowly.
  3. #3  
    Acid3 was designed to be an extraneous test for browsers to create competition and display results for those who could actually reach maximum standards. Truthfully, some of the tests in the Acid3 standards are not even used in modern websites.

    The only issue we have to worry about is the memory leaks because that is the main performance killer. Look up some more information through Google about the reasoning behind Acid3 and how little the results actually mean, especially to the average user.

    WebOS results went from 0% to 73% (not 77) in one update. Not to say that is a big jump because a test stops once it is incompatible which means that WebOS could very well be able to run the rest of the test.

    I'm not trying to rant, but Acid3 tests don't mean crap. The popular browser Firefox doesn't even meet 100% and IE9 is stumped at 32 (yes, IE9). By the way, typing "M$" just demeans your thread all the more.


    If I helped you or you have downloaded one of my files,
    then least you could do is click the "Thanks" button.
  4. #4  
    I spoke to some web designers about making their sites mobile friendly and they didn't want to put in the extra effort.
    Their loss. Seriously, if they won't design for mobile users, there will be someone who does. Do they really think that their site content is so unique that users won't find alternatives?

    And simply adding one line of code is too much? All they need to do is add:
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    Richard Neff

    My tutorials on WebOS development: Beyond 'Hello World!' | Getting Started - WebOS Development

    My apps: Percent Table | SierraPapa
  5. #5  
    Hopefully in the future we will be able to add an option for that RickNeff. Bring down a drop down menu in the top-left that gives the option to add that code to the current website based on "*.testwebsite.com*" or maybe the ability to add a list of website manually through USB drive.


    If I helped you or you have downloaded one of my files,
    then least you could do is click the "Thanks" button.
  6. #6  
    Mobile devices and their browsers are becoming powerful to the extent that mobile-ver websites will become a thing of the past.

    the webOS browser already renders most sites 100% accurately and fairly quick.
  7. #7  
    its an aspect of a browser, but definitely not a top concern in anyways, IE is still at bottom with abysmal numbers, as long as you are higher than that, its good enough practically.

    not to mention, for a mobile browser, something, standard or not, is just meaningless.
  8.    #8  
    I think some of you are missing the point.

    The current (v1.3.5.1) WebOS browser does render a lot of sites correctly...and some not so correct. Heck...Try Facebook and hope it doesn't shift to x./m./touch. but the full site and get back to me on it.
    We don't need Mobile centric versions for the WebOS as it is fully capable of rendering full web sites just like a mini laptop. What bugs me is that the OS is touted as a fully internet based & COMPLIANT design, yet it can't meet enough open standard criteria to make 9 out of 10 websites display correctly. Kind of counter intuitive don't you think??

    Some sites now give you applications to access the site. Wth for?? If the browser worked properly we wouldn't need an extra app to view an internet site! And if you use the argument that the 'app' design is to facilitate better 'flow/usage/etc'...then why not simply redesign the site for that??????
    Again...silliness.

    As for those that use IE as an Acid3 compliant 'guideline'....<shakes head>.
    How the heck can you even pretend that because IE is only xx% acid3 compatible and it 'works', therefore the WebOS browser is 'good enough' and we should be 'happy with it'???
    Web sites typically have an extra custom design around IE6/7 so they will function on a computer loaded with nothing more than Microsoft provides the manufacturer for a browser. What does that have to do with the WebOS Acid3 compliance???
    Are you implying that if we want 'real' browser capabilities we should get Palm to install IE as the standard browser so sites will display properly?????

    Not trying to tick anyone off, but where is the logic in having 'full compliance' with 'internet standards' yet the browser can not display sites accurately??? sigh...
    And no, comparisons to other phones is not where I am going with this...simply trying to get real feed back on the thought process behind WebOS not really being a compliant Web OS.....
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    I think some of you are missing the point.
    I'm sure we got the point, but enlighten us.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    Heck...Try Facebook and hope it doesn't shift to x./m./touch. but the full site and get back to me on it.
    Facebook added WebOS to their compatible mobile browsers so its automatic now. I suggest you use lite.facebook.com

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    We don't need Mobile centric versions for the WebOS as it is fully capable of rendering full web sites just like a mini laptop.
    I see people with netbooks use light or mobile versions of websites. Do you know why mobile website are still made? It's because people still use them. The screens on netbooks, let alone mobile devices have precious screen estate. Removing unneeded clutter and simplifying the web experience for those devices are essential.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    What bugs me is that the OS is touted as a fully internet based & COMPLIANT design, yet it can't meet enough open standard criteria to make 9 out of 10 websites display correctly. Kind of counter intuitive don't you think??
    What's your source and/or test results? Not that I'm doubting you, but I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    Some sites now give you applications to access the site. Wth for?? If the browser worked properly we wouldn't need an extra app to view an internet site! And if you use the argument that the 'app' design is to facilitate better 'flow/usage/etc'...then why not simply redesign the site for that??????
    Again...silliness.
    Applications can perform functions that regular website cannot. The main function are built in buttons. Applications are also made to flow better with the operating system, and thats simply why we have applications. Put two and two together.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    As for those that use IE as an Acid3 compliant 'guideline'....<shakes head>.
    How the heck can you even pretend that because IE is only xx% acid3 compatible and it 'works', therefore the WebOS browser is 'good enough' and we should be 'happy with it'???
    Because the majority of web developer design websites based on the compatibility of IE due to the fact that it is the majority browser.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    Web sites typically have an extra custom design around IE6/7 so they will function on a computer loaded with nothing more than Microsoft provides the manufacturer for a browser. What does that have to do with the WebOS Acid3 compliance???
    Are you implying that if we want 'real' browser capabilities we should get Palm to install IE as the standard browser so sites will display properly?????
    At this point, I'm tired of typing. I'll just facepalm.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    Not trying to tick anyone off, but where is the logic in having 'full compliance' with 'internet standards' yet the browser can not display sites accurately??? sigh...
    And no, comparisons to other phones is not where I am going with this...simply trying to get real feed back on the thought process behind WebOS not really being a compliant Web OS.....
    Earlier you correlated Acid3 tests with the compatibility of websites. Here you are denying this. WebOS is compliant.


    If I helped you or you have downloaded one of my files,
    then least you could do is click the "Thanks" button.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by Abyssul View Post

    1. Facebook added WebOS to their compatible mobile browsers so its automatic now. I suggest you use lite.facebook.com

    2. I see people with netbooks use light or mobile versions of websites. Do you know why mobile website are still made? It's because people still use them. The screens on netbooks, let alone mobile devices have precious screen estate. Removing unneeded clutter and simplifying the web experience for those devices are essential.

    3. What's your source and/or test results? Not that I'm doubting you, but I am.

    4. Applications can perform functions that regular website cannot. The main function are built in buttons. Applications are also made to flow better with the operating system, and thats simply why we have applications. Put two and two together.

    5. Because the majority of web developer design websites based on the compatibility of IE due to the fact that it is the majority browser.

    6. Earlier you correlated Acid3 tests with the compatibility of websites. Here you are denying this. WebOS is compliant.

    Answers:
    1: You might want to actually actually use the lite. site to access facebook. It is inferior to the touch. version. The touch. version also allows full web site viewing by simply pressing 'full site' as well. The touch. version is actually better organized and laid out than the full site for most things. The mobile sites do not allow access to the facebook apps, but the full site does.

    2. You mention that the mobile versions of websites remove necessary clutter. I agree, although they can remove too much of the actual site and it varies based on each mobile version. Just look up to my answer for no.1 and you'll have proof of that. Four or is it 5 versions of one web site, yet only one of those is mostly feature complete(touch.) and allows direct access to the full site. hmmmm

    3. This is a little tougher to answer as I muddied the water by being unclear in my initial question. Let me retry to explain. The WebOS, as designed by Palm, has been presented as being an internet based OS from the ground up using current internet tech/design. What confuses me is that such a state of the art OS, designed around internet, can have a browser that, until v1.3.1 ish, couldn't even meet open standard criteria like the Acid3 test. At this point I'm not comparing or discussing ANY other developers browser...just standing and looking at the WebOS as Palm touted it. Don't you find it ODD that it is just recently semi compliant to an open standard test????? That's all I'm asking. I'm not looking for you to come up with excuses about how someone else is or isn't, but why Palm isn't.

    4. Applications...ahh. You are 100% correct. Applications can do some things better than than a browser. Now stand back a bit and ask some basic questions.
    Why do you feel we need an app to supplement a browser for viewing a web page? Doesn't that mean every web site will need its own app? Why bother having a browser in the first place?
    Who benefits from the apps? Isn't it more work to design an app AND a browser page, especially if you want them to use the app to have a better viewing experience anyway?
    Aren't apps, really just a potential way of generating money for developers. After all, why not charge for the app, so that you could view the site 'better' than the browser. Who's to say that you don't actually reverse that in the future...as in you have to have the app to interact the site and with a browser you can't.
    The whole thought process here is that if you feel that an APP is better than a brower, you might want to think about paradigm shifting the browser into a model more like an app cause there is No Way the WebOS users will want an app for every web page. To even suggest an app to view a web page is ludicrous...unless of course your a business man expecting a revenue stream from it.....

    5. As for web designers, creating web sites for IE as its the majority browser.....
    You might want to step back from that too. So are you suggesting that the WebOS browser would be better to:
    a) implement the same standards as IE for viewing to maximize correct page views.
    b) create a completely different standard and hope web pages design for it with a WebOS version

    This is where I propose
    c) use the open standards already available and adhere to them, only tweaking in proprietary code where absolutely necessary. This is the WebOS after all, which should have a up to date Web Browser built in.

    I have to say Abbysul, you speak like someone in the trenches or at least very near them.
    No disrespect, but when I do 'root cause analysis' and 'corrective actions', you would easily fit in the group of people that have been doing it 'such and such' way for a long time, and have had to make do with the tools & resources available. The methods used and resources tapped would always be in a state of flux making long term decisions difficult for those people.

    These are the people that need to be pulled out and retrained using a complete tool-set with access to resources that match said tools. To do less, is to force them to continue functioning like a band-aid at best. Only picking the best tools they can find to patch the old crap they have.

    The WebOS is the new tool-set. The faster Palm gets its house in order on compliance, the sooner retraining can occur. At which point you would look back on other OS'es and wonder how you got by for so long on such garbage.

    But then that's just my thoughts as viewed from outside the current WebOS.
    Last edited by CanadianPre; 01/24/2010 at 02:35 PM. Reason: minor corrections
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianPre View Post
    But then that's just my thoughts as viewed from outside the current WebOS.
    I would agree with you on a standpoint of the web going forward. But there is nothing perfect in this situation:

    1. ACID3 is not a gold standard of what web should look like, the proposition of ACID3, as author himself stated, was to "found items that no browsers supported" (at that time). There is nobody can say that the items picked by acid3 really represent hundreds of, or even thousands of W3C standard items. In fact, many items has since been changed, abolished, etc, leading to changes in ACID3 itself in several occasions, and there is no guarantee this will not happen again in the near future.

    2. ACID 3 is a test suite that test the modern web technology that are developed for a desktop browser. There is significant differences in desktop and mobile browsers, such as many javascript events simply do not apply on a mobile browser. What constitute an important item in ACID 3 on desktop might not be important on a mobile browser at all. Especially on the Pre browser, palm fixed fonts of the webpage at its own style, which will interfere with ACID3 as well.

    3. ACID is not a practical indicator of how a mobile browser performs. There are so many issues with mobile browser, its wrong to expect palm to put ACID3 test at a high priority. Blackberry score 91/100, Opera mini 98/100, android 93/100, firefox mobile 96/100, Pre 73/100, and whats the best browser in the bunch? is BB browser better than Pre? is Opera mini better than android?

    all in all, ACID3 fight is a worthy fight in desktop browser arena, but to demand Palm to invest its valuable time and resources into something means little to its users and to the product at this time, is just unreasonable.
  12.    #12  
    Clevin...you comments are quite lucid and excuse free. I am impressed.
    1. All standards have to start somewhere. See your own item no 3 for how other browsers perform. Interesting how the other manufacturers have little to no problem supporting the 'non-standard' standard.

    2. Interestingly, users of smart phones (including myself) don't see the phones as phones. We see them as minicomputers and treat them as such. Simply put, we expect a full browser implementation. We don't care about fonts and such, we just expect it to work.

    3. You make an assumption here. You ASSUME that Palm requires some kind of massive effort to make the Palm Pre browser acid 3 compliant. I reject that assumption. If EVERY other manufacturer of smart phones and browser software company, mobile or not, finds it 'worth it' and is able to make a significantly compliant browser then there is no suitable reason you Palm can't. They are in the market to compete.

    Cheers,
  13. #13  
    gracias

    1. start from somewhere, yes, but definitely should NOT be from ACID3, items in ACID 3 test were picked in a way that it represent the half baked bleeding edge items in the standards. it was designed in the attitude of break all browsers (at that time) rather than lay down the foundation of what future web should look like.

    2. No thats not true, it doesn't matter what you or I expect, the fact is many important desktop browser features simply do not work on a mobile browser, e.g., any mice hovering event related special effect, dynamic menus,, CSS animation, they means nothing on a mobile browser. Why does anybody want to spend time and resource on these things that just simply useless on a mobile browser?

    You are contradicting yourself by saying you dont care about font, while you care about ACID3, because ACID3 involves font. since Pre enforce its own font system-wide, there is little chance it will ever pass the acid3.

    3. Which mobile browser has 100/100 on Acid 3? NO one. and it IS massive amount of efforts to do this. Apple's safari always uses webkit core that is at least 6 months old, why? because its not easy to grab a engine and use it for your need, it require massive amount of bug fixing and usability tests.

    If any manufacturer think they can promote their mobile browser by saying they are 100/100 on ACID 3, good luck with that. Its a joke since essentially this market is dominated by either Opera or Webkit. There is no competition since mostly these two are operating on different devices.
  14.    #14  
    Clevin, thanks for the speedy follow-up.

    Just so you know, I'm not looking for 100% on Acid 3...just something comparable to the other browsers you mentioned on the competitions smartphones. A 90% is pretty fantastic as far as I'm concerned. A zero and a 50% are not. 70% and above is not too shabby..but we are not looking for mediocre, we are looking for competition.

    One of the many reason's I brought this thread up was simply because I noticed that the full Facebook site didn't display a lot of things, including the application bar at the bottom of the page. Suddenly it does display, just not correctly...even at 73-77%. Btw, the webos browser fluctuates on the acid3 test. Sometimes it chokes at 50% or so, other times its at 73, others 77%.
  15. rockyjay's Avatar
    Posts
    87 Posts
    Global Posts
    181 Global Posts
    #15  
    Just an update that The Pre's browser now scores a 92 on the Acid3 test. The newest Firefox 3.5.8 is scoring 93
  16. #16  
    it might have a higher acid3 score. But plenty bugs in day to day use: swipe forward, image display, etc

    and still no password remembering, or fast cache reading.

    palm seriously needs to get it's priority straight.
  17.    #17  
    I have to say I'm quite pleased that Palm stepped up their game on the browser side of things. I've been reading quite a few good things about the new more compliant browser. That being said, all I can do is read about others, cause I'm in Canada and we don't have v1.4 update yet. Then again we don't have an actual app store either, which means no real games or apps...sigh...

    Of course, Clevin does point out that the progress on the browser still needs to another step.
    Last edited by CanadianPre; 03/01/2010 at 12:05 AM. Reason: missed a line
  18. migs's Avatar
    Posts
    875 Posts
    Global Posts
    989 Global Posts
    #18  
    Anyone with the Pre2 developer phone run the acid3 test yet? I heard it went down by one on the 2.0 emulator...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions