Cloud Four Blog

Technical notes, War stories and anecdotes

Why Chrome not shipping with Android 4.4 might not be a bad thing

Maximiliano Firtman broke the news a couple days ago that Android 4.4 (Kit Kat) will not ship to manufacturers with a browser:

At first blush, this seems like a bad thing especially for those of us who have been waiting so long for the Android browser to die and Chrome to take its place. However, I think this may actually be good news.

The first thing to keep in mind is that what ships to carriers and manufacturers is not the same thing as what ships to the store. Android doesn’t include Google Maps by default. If you want that on the phone you’re building, you have to license the Google apps services separately from Android’s open source code.

I attended the Mobile Summit during Google I/O earlier this year. One of the questions we asked was when will Chrome be the default browser for Android. The answer was that couldn’t say precisely because the handset manufacturer would have a say in the matter.

This has been one of Google’s biggest challenges with Android is the speed at which handset manufacturers adopt new versions of Android (if they ever do). Over the last year or so, Google has developed a strategy for addressing this problem.

Ron Amadeo wrote a great article for Ars Technica earlier this year that outlined how Google is now side-stepping the carriers and OEMs. In the article he describes how Google is using its Google Play Services which it licenses to OEMs as a way to keep applications on a frequent update cycle.

Google Play Services takes care of lower-level APIs and background services, and the other part of Google’s fragmentation takedown plan involves the Play Store. Google has been on a multi-year mission to decouple just about every non-system app from the OS for easy updating on the Play Store.

With that in mind, let’s go back to the question of Chrome. The slow pace of carrier and handset updates is the complete opposite of Chrome’s frequent release cycle. The Chrome team prides itself on the frequent releases and touts how they’re bringing that same release cycle to mobile.

If Google released Android 4.4 to carriers and handset manufacturers with Chrome installed, they would have no control over when Chrome is updated. By bundling it with Google services that the handset manufacturers sign up for and license, Google controls the app and how frequently it updates.

The big question is whether or not when a handset manufacturer signs up for Google services if Google forces the manufacturer to ship Chrome as the default browser. Because they dictate the terms of licensing of Google’s proprietary services and apps, I don’t see any reason why Google would put that condition on usage.

Yes, there is the potential that more devices will come out with browsers that aren’t using Chrome. But those are the Android-derived devices that don’t play in the Google apps space regardless. We’re talking about the Android devices in China or forks like the Amazon Kindle. It was unlikely they would use Chrome anyways so at least when they ship a browser, we’ll know it is something different.

But for end consumers and web developers, this seems like the best possible scenario. If you buy a phone that utilizes all the Google services we think of on Android (e.g., Google Maps, Gmail, Calendar, etc.), then you’ll get Chrome and I’m speculating here, but I suspect you get Chrome by default.

More importantly, you get real Chrome. The Chrome that updates every six weeks. And not a hobbled version of Chrome that would be limited by whims of the carriers and the manufacturers as to when it is updated.

PhoneGap makes mobile app development more accessible

Editor’s note: This is a guest post from our friend Dan Moore. He recently wrote a book about PhoneGap’s new command line tools. I asked him to share what it was about these new tools got him so excited that he would do the most insane thing I can think of and become an author. Hope you enjoy. —Jason

Use of applications that run on your phone or tablet (aka apps) is growing rapidly. Building apps typically requires a specialized skill set–developers have to know languages like Objective C and Android Java. In addition, they need to have a design sense as well, because they are building user interfaces. Few developers have this combination of skills, and so those who do can charge for it.

But PhoneGap, a four year old project, now lets developers leverage standard web technologies such as CSS, HTML and JavaScript to build mobile applications. Designers who know CSS and HTML can create fantastic mobile friendly user interfaces (leveraging frameworks like Topcoat and Junior) and developers can focus on functionality and performance.

PhoneGap lab illustration

PhoneGap, and its open source foundation project Cordova, democratize the development of mobile applications.  (PhoneGap is built on top of Cordova the same way Safari is built on WebKit, so there are many similarities between the projects.)

For end users, applications built using PhoneGap are indistinguishable from those built using native technologies.  PhoneGap applications can access the camera, GPS and other device specific functionality. There is even a way (called ‘plugins’) for independent developers can write native code and access it from JavaScript.

PhoneGap Challenges

For most of the past four years, developers using PhoneGap faced a few problems when developing or maintaining PhoneGap applications. Among them:

  • The PhoneGap framework moves fast, typically releasing a new version every month.  Upgrades require understanding exactly what components beyond the standard JavaScript, HTML and CSS had changed.
  • Plugins were not separate from look and feel or business logic.
  • Every plugin had its own set of instructions for installation and/or upgrading.
  •  Supporting multiple device platforms with one set of JavaScript, HTML and CSS was a goal for PhoneGap development, but required either homegrown scripts or manual syncing between directories. Platform feature drift was difficult to avoid.
  • Specific IDEs had to be set up for each supported platform.

All of these problems are tough enough for small applications, but for apps maintained for more than one release, the issues add up quickly.

CLI to the Rescue

Version 2.9 of PhoneGap, released in June of 2013, included a command line interface to manage applications. Instead of plugins being manually installed according to a README, standardized installation procedures are available. There’s a nascent plugin directory so that discovering a needed plugin no longer requires hunting through Google search results.

Instead of having to choose how to sync JavaScript, HTML and CSS, there is one location in a project for platform independent code, and one for platform specific code. Developers can develop outside of an IDE, in the web browser, using the web development technologies they are familiar with. There even is a system for calling scripts at various points of the application’s build cycle, so the CLI can be extended.

Developers still have to install and maintain device specific platform SDKs, but once they’ve done that once, they can add or remove a platform for a given project with a single command.  And if a developer is just doing a quick prototype or can live with the (considerable) constraints, there is PhoneGap Build, a cloud service, which can build PhoneGap applications without requiring platform SDK installation.

With the PhoneGap/Cordova CLI, a developer can code and test a mobile application without running the device specific tools (like an IDE or ant script) even once. Of course, if an IDE makes a developer happier or more productive, they can use one for developing application code as well.

The CLI makes coping with change easier

The breakneck pace of PhoneGap development hasn’t changed, but the cost of upgrading has dramatically decreased. Instead of having to recreate platform environments entirely manually, or (more likely) simply not upgrading, most configuration has been pushed into standardized files. In some cases, upgrading can be as simple as running a few commands.

The command line interface opens up new worlds of automation, and continues PhoneGap’s march to democratize the mobile application development world.

Dan Moore is Director of Technology for 8z Real Estate, a Colorado and California real estate brokerage, and the author of “Developing Cross Platform Mobile Applications with Cordova CLI”

Picking a Responsive Tables Solution

One of the most common questions I get asked during responsive design workshops is how to handle tables. I usually show some of the techniques and then tell people they should pick the right technique for the content in the table.

There are a series of questions that you can ask about the content in a table that will help you pick the right technique.

Do people use the tables to compare rows? Compare columns?

Example 1: People don’t compare rows or columns

Let’s assume for a moment that people don’t compare rows or columns. What would be an example of a table like that? How about a listing of top movies?


In this example from the jQuery Mobile library, we have a table containing the top movies ordered by rating.

On a wide screen, it is helpful to see the movies in a table because it makes it easy to scan each column. But it is unlikely that people are relying on the table to compare rows or columns.

There isn’t a tremendous value to be gained by comparing the director from row 1 (Orson Welles) to row 2 (Michael Curtiz). Similarly, comparing the ratings column to either of the columns next to it—year and reviews—doesn’t add much, if any, meaning to the table.

Because people do not compare rows or columns, this table is a good candidate for being transformed into a list on smaller screens:


Which is exactly what the jQuery Mobile developers do in their demo. Check it out.

Example 2: People compare rows or columns

If you have a table listing a bunch of stock and their prices, like the one below from Simon Elvery, then you will probably find that people are comparing one stock to another to see if they are investing in the right places.


In this case, we want a solution that allows people to continue to compare rows. In the example Simon provides which is based on work by David Bushell, the table flips so that the header row is a header column and the rows are now columns that are scrollable.


Again, this is something best seen in action by going to Simon’s Flip Scroll example. This is very similar to Zurb Foundation’s responsive tables solution.

Another way to handle this need to compare is to reduce the number of columns so that the table fits as demonstrated by the Filament Group.


They also used a stocks table as their example, but on narrow screens, they hide columns that are deemed less important.


If someone needs to see a column that has been removed, they can use the pull down menu to add it into the table.


Check out the Filament Group demo and a similar demo from the jQuery Mobile showcase.

What information is essential?

If you find yourself in a situation where you want to show fewer columns on small screens, then you have to start asking yourself what information is essential. It is helpful to ask yourself these questions.

What information do people care about the most?

  • Which columns are most critical to understanding what the meaning of the table is?
  • Which columns are people most likely to care about?

What is necessary to be able to differentiate one piece of information from another?

If you’re looking at row after row of information, what information would allow a person to quickly distinguish between two rows? This is particularly important in scenarios where the rows are used in applications interfaces.

Say you have a table that shows information about users. Administrators can select a user and then edit that user’s account.

On wide screens, you would might include things like the user’s roles, last time they logged in, etc. But on small screens, you simply need to make sure that you’ve provided the critical information that an admin needs to be confident that they are selecting the right user.

Is it necessary for everything to be on the same screen or can you conditionally load additional detail as needed?

A lot of the more complex responsive tables implementations I’ve seen have come in situations where the developer was trying to fit every piece of content that was available on wide screens onto small screens.

In some of the more extreme examples I’ve seen, this has caused huge performance and layout problems as tables with hundreds of rows and dozens of columns were combined with fixed header rows and columns and squeezed onto a small screen.

I think the mistake a lot of people make is believing that responsive design means that they have to everything in the same document regardless of screen size.

If you were to start a mobile first design of a stock table, you might say that on small screens, you are going to show the following columns:

  • Company name
  • Ticker symbol
  • Price
  • Percent change

If the user wants more data, they select a stock to go to a detail page and view more information about the stock.

Then as the screen got bigger, you might show more columns. You might even decide that on wider screens that you will make AJAX calls to retrieve the data from the detail page you built for small screens.

This all makes sense. You’re using progressive enhancement based on screen size. No big deal.

There is a funny thing that happens when you flip it around—when you start from existing big table of data that was designed for wide screens. People no longer allow themselves the option to not have everything on the same screen.

I’ve observed on more than one occasion that designers and developers no longer feel like it is acceptable to not show all the columns or to have people go to a detail page to see more information on small screens. That doing so is not responsive design and is cheating in some way.

I think it is a mental trick that we play on ourselves depending on our starting point. If we start mobile first, we never doubt it. If we start from an existing desktop table, we unconsciously limit our options.

Here’s what matters when it comes to tables in responsive design:

  • Do people understand the meaning of the table in all contexts?
  • Can people get to all of the information somehow?
  • Have you made sure that every URL is accessible regardless of device?

If you can answer yes to all three, then you’ve done your job.

Your content will dictate the best responsive table solution

There are a lot of different ways to handle tables in responsive designs. And I expect that we will see more alternatives and techniques as time passes.

But regardless of how many responsive tables solutions we have to choose from in the future, the way to select the right one for your project will remain the same.

Your content will dictate the best responsive table solution. You just have to ask the right questions of it.

Responsive table resources

The following is a non-comprehensive list of potential responsive tables solutions. I use them primarily as inspiration and design patterns.

Responsive Web Design is Solid Gold

A few years ago I wrote an article entitled CSS Media Query for Mobile is Fool’s Gold. It garnered a lot of attention at the time, and I still see people reference it.

I’ve long wanted to write an update to that article, but never knew quite what to say until now. And because one inflammatory title deserves another, read on for why Responsive Web Design is Solid Gold.

Our default approach is now responsive web design

Back in 2010 when I wrote the Fool’s Gold article, our default approach for mobile was to use device detection. If a site was simple and the budget small, we might use responsive web design.

Some time ago our default approach switched. We now treat responsive web design as the default approach and look out for reasons why it won’t work instead of the other way around.

Why did our default approach change? Two reasons: performance and device diversity.

Update on performance

Much of my Fool’s Gold article focuses on performance problems with flexible images and CSS background images. One of the reasons why I’ve had trouble figuring out how to write a follow up is because the performance issues that I raised remain true today.

Let’s do a quick round up of the issues and updates on each:

Perhaps most importantly, most responsive web sites are still far too large on small screens.

So if most of these remain true and most responsive designs are bloated, why has my perspective changed?

Because it is possible to build responsive design responsibly and create fast experiences. The keys to doing so are:

  1. Build mobile first responsive designs
  2. Keep CSS background images in scoped media queries
  3. Conditionally load JavaScript and even HTML fragments based on screen size and capabilities
  4. Implement a responsive images solution
  5. Handle retina images very carefully and err on the side of performance

If you do these things and do the normal things you should do to make any web page fast, you will have a fast responsive design. It may not be easy, but it is possible.

But what about the fact that most responsive designs are bloated? As Tim Kadlec says, “blame the implementation, not the technique“.

I don’t blame device detection for the many sites that route people to the mobile home page instead of the article they’re looking for. And I don’t blame responsive web design for the fact that most implementations are bloated.

Can a responsive design ever be as fast as a page tailored for a specific device?

Probably not. But the web is a balancing act between many competing interests. A site that was completely tailored for search engine optimization would be unreadable by humans.

By the same token, performance is an extremely important factor, but is still just one of many factors that make a site successful. You can build responsive designs that are fast enough that the benefits of responsive design outweigh the potential performance improvements you might get from separate sites.

Especially when you consider device diversity.

Device diversity makes responsive design inevitable

Let’s assume for a moment that responsive design doesn’t work for your project. So you decide that you’re going to need to build mobile, tablet and desktop experiences. And let’s set aside for the moment the inevitability of new form factors like televisions, watches, etc.

Even in this scenario with different experiences for each of the three major form factors, you’re still going to end up needing responsive design—or at least responsive characteristics.

Yesterday, Samsung announced that it was launching a 6.3 inch phone. The range of screen sizes on mobile phones alone will likely force you to build something that will adjust from the small screen sizes of Blackberry Bolds and feature phones to the mammoth screens of some Samsung devices.

Tablets present a similar challenge ranging from 7 to 13 inch displays (and sometimes much bigger). And we’re all familiar with the large difference between ultrabook screens and cinema displays.

I wrote in much more detail about the impact of device diversity earlier this year and my conclusion that:

Any attempt to draw a line around a particular device class has as much permanence as a literal line in the sand. Pause for a moment and the line blurs. Look away and it will be gone.

So regardless of what techniques you use in addition to it, responsive web design will likely be part of your solution.

What about mobile context?

One of the other points I made in the Fool’s Gold article was related to mobile context. It is something I’ve struggled with for years.

I’m now firmly on the side that there is no mobile context. We have abundant data that shows that people use their mobile devices indoors and for a wide variety of things.

Luke captured it well when he wrote:

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned in observing people on their mobile devices, it’s that they’ll do anything on mobile if they have the need. Write long emails? Check. Manage complex sets of information? Check. And the list goes on. If people want to do it, they’ll do it on mobile -especially when it’s their only or most convenient option.


So Jeremy Keith and Stephen Hay were right. There is no mobile web. Mea culpa.

Still No Silver Bullets

I concluded my Fool’s Gold article by stating the obvious: there are no silver bullets when it comes to adapting our existing apps and sites for mobile screens. At that point in time, people were touting media queries as a quick fix for mobile.

Since then, our profession has learned a lot more about the complexity of designing and building experiences for multiple devices. Now it is generally understood that supporting all the devices that may access our content and services isn’t easy, but that tackling problems that range from responsive images to legacy content management systems are the heavy-lifting that we must do in order to be future friendly.

And despite those challenges, I’m excited about where the web is heading and what we can do with progressive enhancement and responsive web design.

Responsive web design: it’s solid gold, baby. :-)

The Pitfalls of UI Kits and Pattern Libraries

When I wrote Common Patterns in Styleguides, Boilerplates and Pattern Libraries back in May, I honestly didn’t know if anyone would find something as pedestrian as a spreadsheet that interesting. It was great to discover I’d at least partially solved a problem for a lot of people. But I was surprised to hear from a handful of designers and developers who interpreted it as a score card… the more patterns a library contained, the better.

Yikes! Totally not my intention.

Here’s the thing: These frameworks are terrific resources. I think it’s really helpful to see how other teams craft (and document) scalable and modular interface elements. They are excellent points of reference.

But I tend not to use them for more than that. For two big reasons.


It’s a rare project that launches with less complexity than anticipated. So why front-load your project with the totality of another team’s interface needs?

.net magazine recently published an interview with six RWD experts. Here’s a gem of a quote from Tim Kadlec:

I think that our industry in general has it a little backwards: instead of the default being a framework or all these other little plugins and polyfills, the default should be just simple HTML and CSS. Then, as the project needs, you can start including things. But everything you add to a page or project adds something — be that weight, maintenance or complexity — and therefore everything needs to be justified before it gets thrown into play. Start light and vanilla and only add things in if they’re necessary.

And from Aaron Gustafson:

I find Foundation, Bootstrap, and similar frameworks interesting from an educational standpoint, but I would never use one when building a production site. For prototyping a concept, sure, but to take one of these into production you need to be rigorous in your removal of unused CSS and JavaScript or you end up creating a heavy, slow experience for you users. I also think you need to work twice as hard to break out of the theme of the framework. There are a ton of Bootstrap sites out there that look like Bootstrap sites. Your design should be as unique as your product, not some off the shelf thing you just changed some colors on.

Opaque design thinking

Many of these frameworks are incredibly well-designed and executed. But how, and why? Why that corner radius? Why that font size? Why three button sizes… why not four, or five? How can we competently extend this design thinking without knowledge of its history or principles?

Trek Glowacki wrote a wonderful gist that describes this problem in detail:

Every design is like a little language with its own correct grammar and syntax nearly as specific as a programming language. It contains primitives but instead of concepts like maps, arrays, integers, and functions the primitives include size, weight, color, proportion, and texture.

Without first understanding that language it’s impossible to correctly express anything new. And that’s where the problems start for most people using these libraries. If they stay safely within the provided components they can make an application that looks designed (because it is) but no UI kit provides every possible component or even has guidance about all the ways existing components can be combined.

So why care about common patterns at all?

Our own responsive deliverables benefit from seeing what patterns emerge from those who’ve solved similar problems before. We can learn from their techniques while crafting new ones.

In the immortal words of Emil Faber, “Knowledge is Good.”