I'm trying to find other type of products which allows me to create a desktop app through html5 + javascript. Actually I found these three but I still don't know their technical name so I really can't search for them on google. Any suggestion about this?
Also, I'm looking for a list of similar products, to choose the one that fits my needs.
I really like how you build interfaces with html + css + javascripts with great results, but I need quite good interaction with the O.S. to handle window. Expecially, I were looking for transparent windows which seems not implemented on node-webkit at the moment, while on AppJS seems ok but I don't like the idea of serving the content like a webserver, I prefer the node-webkit approach.
Search for "HTML5 Desktop" and you will find all the platforms that allows you to build desktop apps using html5 in the first page like appjs, tidesk, pokki, node-webkit etc.
Related
Is there any way we could live stream "video/mp2t" content in the browser? I'm building a live stream app where some urls don't have any mimetype specified but the content is "video/mp2t". I've tried to use the major html 5 players: jwplayer, shaka-player, video.js, and none of them seem to support this kind of content out of the box. I've read that might be possible to transmux on the fly to mp4, do you guys know any example or some guidelines?
Android and ios seem to support this but the browser not, why is that? Do you think it's something to be incorporated in the future?
Thanks!
I've read that might be possible to transmux on the fly to mp4
Yes, you can write the code yourself, or base it on a another library like mux.js. But as you said, nothing does this out of the box.
Android and ios seem to support this but the browser not, why is that?
There are dozens or hundreds of container formats. Supporting them all would be ridiculous. Different companies, and different standard bodies make different decisions on what they think their users will require.
Do you think it's something to be incorporated in the future?
No, I don't.
I've been thinking to give GUI development a try lately and am torn with the choice of between wxPython and Mono.
Judging from what I've seen out there, wxPython people seem to use the WebKit trick to produce nice (doesn't have to be beautiful) UI.
How hard is it to do the following in each of the platform:
1) Custom Control
2) Use HTML rendering
I don't quite understand how far the HTML rendering works via WebKit in wxPython (i.e.: does it support separate CSS/JS files? how's the JS support? do we need to write extra wxPython code to run the JS? how hard it is to integrate between JS events and wxPython widgets? what are the usual strategy of integrating WebKit with wxPython?)
Mind to share your thought on this subject? I specifically pick either wxPython or Mono, not Java Swing for no reason.
PS: I'm aware of certain limitation of cross-platform UI (as in: it won't be 100% native) and I could care less of such things.
wxPython has wxWebkit available via the new WebView widget, but WebKit is only available on Mac and Linux right now. WebView uses a different rendering engine on Windows called Trident from IE (see http://wxpython.org/CHANGES.html). So you'll want to keep that in mind.
Either way, we're talking about browser engines that display HTML, CSS, etc. They should, theoretically, display whatever those engines support. You'll have to look up their specifications to be sure and also make sure to check if the port supports everything. As I understand it, they should definitely support the usual HTML and CSS and I would assume normal javascript. If I were you, I'd just create a simple window in wxPython and then load the web page you've created and see how it works.
I don't know how the javascript communicates with wxPython or if it even does. You'll want to ask on their mailing list for that kind of information.
I want to add a similar feature to a tool I'm making. I'm interested in how it works code-wise. I want to be able get an html page and exclude all but the article.
The Readability project does something similar for chrome and iOS. I'm not sure how it detects the content automatically but I know that Readability has an API for people who want to integrate it's features. You might want to check that out.
http://www.readability.com/learn-more
If you're working with Ruby, you could use Pismo. It extracts an article from a given document.
How can I quickly produce a report of a website in the format:
Page Name.
- Links within the page
Page Name.
- Links within the page
Any programming or scripting language will do.
Although I prefer a solution on Windows, we have all of: Windows, Mac and Linux platforms available in the office.
Just looking for a way to do it without much fanfare.
There might be tools able to do this for you, but it isn't all that hard to put together yourself. One possible solution would be to...
Use wget (can be found for Windows) to download all HTML files, and
use some xpath tool or grep with regexps to get the title and the links from the pages.
///Jens
There are loads of link analysers that will do exactly that. Here's the first I found in Google.
For something a little more interesting, Don Syme did a great F# demo in which he wrote a really simple asynch URL processing class. I can't find the exact link, but here's something similar from an F# MVP. You would need to adapt it to pull out links, and recursively follow them if you want nesting.
As background, I currently develop for a university, and we have problems with departments demanding "web 2.0 content" and accessibility requirements.
How do really big sites that are JavaScript based deal with 508 Compliance? Some sites degrade, and others require enabling JavaScript. How much impact does one decision have versus the other?
Also, in a realistic sense, how much development time should be devoted the accessible versions of sites versus the "main" versions?
I'm a blind developer and find it possible to use many Web 2.0 sites - this is most certainly possible.
Firstly, I strongly advise against making a separae accessible site, regardless of how many people advise you to do this. This is bad practice and will end up being more work, even if it initialy seems simpler.
Next, try to use progressive enhancement (particularly if this is a new site). Code the site without any Javascript; it's not just accessibility which benefits. Then, in your OnLoad() go through and attach Click events to the anchor tags; this way if you have Javascript you'll see the Ajax version, otherwise you will have a full page refresh and see another HTML page.
Luckily, there is a new standard, WAI-Aria (www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria.php) which makes this much simpler. You attach attributes to HTML tags to identify the semantics of an Ajax control, for example. The only problem with Aria is that it only works with newer screen readers and web browsers. The university may well require the site be accessible to people running older software.
I'm a screen reader user and often use Javascript enabled sites. Javascript is not an accessibility issue, the way it is used can be. For example if the site uses javascript that requires the use of a mouse and doesn't have keyboard alternatives it will not be 508 compliant. An example of a site that uses Javascript and is accessible is stackoverflow.com. The only feature that isn't accessible is the ability to determine if you have accepted an answer to a question. I would take a look at the links in Annie's answer. All the blind college students I know use a fairly modern browser with Javascript enabled, Lynx is no longer popular in the blind community. If you want to try using a screen reader a good open source one for windows can be found at
http://www.nvda-project.org/
and it works well with firefox. If you want to try using the web with out Javascript install the Noscript addin.
Sites don't have to disable JavaScript to be accessible. Many sites use ARIA roles to work better with screen readers. There's a giant list of articles on accessible AJAX applications here. You could try something like AxsJAX.