Talk:Progressive web app

Firefox Nightly

Firefox Nightly has decent support for service workers too. Might we worth mentioning that.

Firefox Nightly is a moving target, as the name implies. What features it has, change from one day to another. Eventually, all the browsers should support this, in a consistent way.OsamaBinLogin (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Links to CanIUse and Is Service Worker Ready? are better than listing support for features by browser.

Term "Progressive web app"

Correct me if i'm wrong but has the term "Progressive web app" been hijacked?

A progressive web application for me used to mean an application that provides more features depending on whether it was supported by the user's device / browser. i.e progressive enhancement.

We have always had progressive web applications by implementing new features when supported / possible.

For example, detecting whether the user's device has a camera and providing a feature that uses it.

It still applies to providing the ability for an application to have a native app look and feel but developing web applications specifically for native-like experiences is not the definition of a "progressive web app" in my books.

Maybe I should be using the term "Progressively Enhanced Web App" instead?

In either case my two cents would be that the definition of a 'Progressive Web App' is not limited to supporting native experiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.98.58 (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, progressive enhancement is the term I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:B39A:9596:7E7E:1022:8AAE (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

yeah, it's been hijacked. It has a general meaning, like you say, a web app that's progressive, using the latest features, any given year's features.

Rich Internet Applications (RIA) is an older name for a standalone app that's internally implemented using "web" technology - although really they seemed to use proprietary platforms like Shockwave Flash or Silverlight that are typically used in web pages.

HTML5 includes features that start to work towards having standalone apps implemented but as of this writing (aug 2017) they're not ready for prime time. That is what they're talking about in this article. I'll try to make some corrections. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it hasn't hijacked the term. "Progressive web app" is a new term, coined in 2015 and gained momentum in 2016. It is related, but not the same as "Progressive enhancement" which are sites that improve certain aspects given that the browser supports the required technology. If the browser doesn't, the site will still have the features, but in cruder manner. The first example I can think of is Gmail which you can use with javascript turned off unlike many sites the require javascript or they will not do anything at all. And PWA is more than just looking like a web app. It's technology that allows the web app to, amongst other things,

• run while offline
• run in the background even when the browser isn't
• deliver notifications even when the browser isn't active

--139.112.164.36 (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Green lines in the lists of apps

What does the green background mean on some of the apps in the 2 lists near the bottom? Nick (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This list is now gone. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed it in 2019, see below. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

History

"Since around 2005 web development technologies have shifted from static to dynamic web pages driven by server (PHP, ASP.NET) or client side ( Ajax[1] ) tools, and responsive web design.[2]"

Where does 2005 come from? Even in the linked article by Ethan Marcotte I can't see a clear statement about when such "shift" occurred. I can't think of any mainstream website in the late 90s which didn't heavily rely on server-side scripting.

Kijuhy (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This did look like a non-substantiated statement. Fortunatelly, it has been rewritten since then (not by me). Year 2005 does not appear anywhere now. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed list of PWA test scores

I removed the table of benchmark scores for the following reasons:

1. There are too many PWAs online to list all of them in the article
2. WP:N The PWAs in the list do not meet requirement of Notability because they lack any independent coverage
3. WP:NOR The whole list is not verifiable because it is original research
4. The benchmark scores fluctuate a lot widely as tests are changed, added, or removed. The results are not verifiable.
5. The whole table is not useful to anyone for all the aforementioned reasons.

The page might benefit from a list of notable businesses and services that offer PWA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.bersh (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of "apps" in lede

It would be beneficial to include the term "apps" in the lede. While web applications are not the only form of apps, for the general reader there is usually not an understanding that web and native applications are the "apps" that they are most familiar with.

I propose the following (changes in bold) for the lede to make this relationship clear without confusing the technical specifics:

Progressive web applications (PWAs) are web pages or websites that function as web applications, with an experience identical to a native application on a mobile device. Functionality includes working offline, push notifications, and device hardware access. While both PWAs and native applications can function as mobile apps, with PWAs there is no requirement for developers or users to go through digital distribution systems like the App Store or Google Play.

- Seazzy (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I'd also mention that PWAs are built with web technologies like HTML, JS, CSS instead of native languages like Java or Kotlin on Android and Objectiv-C or Swift on iOS.Anton.bersh (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Updated. Used "mobile apps" to clarify, included HTML, CSS, js info. - Seazzy (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusing wording in the article

The article needs some editing to fix factual errors. E.g., it states "At the launch of the iPhone in 2007, Steve Jobs announced that web apps, written using Web 2.0 and AJAX (later known as HTML5), would be the standard format for iPhone apps," however (1) Web 2.0 is not a technology, rather an idea that web should be more "social" and focus on user-generated content and (2) AJAX is a architecture of building pages that can update without full page reload and (3) HTML5 is an actual standard/technology.Anton.bersh (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made the changes. @Anton.bersh:, would you take a look and make any necessary corrections? -Seazzy (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Condensing technologies sections

The technologies section has a number of subcategories that both have no citations and have only one or two sentences describing their relevance. I propose condensing them under an "Other technologies" subcategory. These would include: PouchDB, RxDB, GunDB, Hood.ie and any subsequent technologies that have some relevance but do not warrant a full subsection.

I would also recommend removing the web worker subsection entirely, as the service worker is a type of web worker that is a PWA requirement. - Seazzy (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this information does not belong to this article, I think it should be moved to a separate one because:

1. Information about these libraries might be helpful for someone looking to build a PWA, but is not really encyclopedic and is not necessary for understanding what a PWA is and how it functions (which technologies are accessible). In its core, every of these libraries either uses pure JS (in-memory database) or relies on IndexedDB. None of them enable any more functionality that would not be achievable without them; in contrast, Web Storage enables simple key-value store and IndexedDB enables large volume storage and each is crucial for some types of PWAs.

2. WP:N I could not find any third-party sources about PouchDB, RxDB, GunDB, Hood.ie and therefore believe they do not meet notability requirement. I believe a stand-alone list of database libraries might be better fitting for them. I propose moving them to a separate list, somehing similar to CSS framework, but for databases. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for more information.

3. I'm not sure what are the criteria for selecting these libraries among others. E.g, I searched for "js database" and on the first page found http://taffydb.com/, http://lokijs.org/, stewd.io/, on the second page I saw https://www.rethinkdb.com/, https://alasql.org/ and others. Which of these libraries are more relevant to the PWA? I believe none of them are relevant to this article specifically in the same way none of CSS framework libraries are relevant to this article.

Anton.bersh (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

RethinkDB is written in C++. RxDB and GunDB as an example offer a lot of functionalities, who are not present without them.

They may be not used very much in this regard, while this is no technical limitation, just a cultural.

As you said, this is useful for potential developers and this is, most importantly, how a significant amount of people using

an encyclopedia. Do you think limiting the usage of Wikipedia based on our own preferences is correct?

ShalokShalom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not so much an issue of preference, as an issue of notability and usefulness in the context of an article about what a PWA is. My proposal is to retain the information, while improving readability of the article. As it stands, the subsections have significantly increased the contents box length without providing meaningful information. Wikipedia guidelines state that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. As mentioned above, the libraries could easily warrant their own page, Database Libraries for example. This solves the problem of burdening the PWA page with excessive detail. However, it will be up to the person creating the list to prove notability. I have condensed the information into a "Database libraries" section, with citations needed tags. Is web storage a database library? If so, it should be moved to the Database libraries section, without having its own subsection. -Seazzy (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding HTML template to article

Would it be useful to add Template:HTML to the article? I'm not well versed in template usage, but if it's possible to add new technologies to the template, PWAs would probably deserve a spot. Does anyone want to take this task on? -Seazzy (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I do not think Template:HTML is relevant here, simple mention of HTML in lead is sufficient. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

“Served via HTTPS” is not a distinction.

The article mentions “served via HTTPS” as a characteristic.

For nearly a decade, HTTPS is actually the default of many websites, no matter whether progressive web applications or ordinary HTML websites.

I am not implying that the point should be removed from the article, I am just noting that it is not a special distinction. -Handroid7 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. As of now, article no longer implies that HTTPS is a distinction. This information is now in "Installability criteria" section. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discord lacks a PWA but is an example of one

Discord lacks a PWA (progressive web app), yet is mentioned in the “Example” section of the article. I think it should be removed Fmpgri (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Was fixed a while ago.Anton.bersh (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed list of "Database libraries"

Previously[1] article contained a list of random wrappers around Indexed Database API. I removed it as per "Wikipedia is not a directory"[2]. This list was not supported by any third-party sources (it just linked to libraries' own web pages) and wouldn't be useful to anyone because it contained a rather random selection of libraries.

[1] https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Progressive_web_application&type=revision&diff=968118201&oldid=964630558 [2] https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory --Anton.bersh (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is in charge?

Can we add a link to the W3C working group: https://www.w3.org/2019/webapps/ I think it's important to show where the official specifications are for making all these things work together. GlenPeterson (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Good idea! Go ahead! -- Jmc (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Done! Anton.bersh (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Mozilla officially dropping support for PWAs in Firefox Desktop

As per this Bugzilla comment here > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593#c8, and this bug here > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1407202. Mozilla has offically ended support for PWAs in Firefox Desktop.

Am I allowed to do relevant edits to the article to state this?

2404:E80:81D7:0:2483:3FB8:171F:D2B2 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Needs a RS. -- Jmc (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. This was noted a while ago, with reliable third-party source. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Browser support confusion

If Firefox does allegedly not support progressive web applications, how come Twitter's site works according to my testing?

Maybe polyfills should be mentioned?

Devon the webdev (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Devon the webdev, Can you install twitter's site so it looks like a native application using Firefox? That's what this article is about, not viewing applications as web pages. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does this page still exist?

Why does this page still exist? It promotes the spread of spam and malware and should be merged with either of those pages. -- 143.178.44.253 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This article exists because its subject, progressive web applications, are a very notable subject, as demonstrated by references in the article. If you see any spam or malware, then point it out to me or just remove it yourself. Also, please log in or create an account so that you get notifications od replies to your comments. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with the source?

Apparently my edit has been removed because of this source. What was wrong about it? It does not promote any company, but just describes technical things.

Is it even necessary to add a source to the statement that progressive web apps increase outreach? It is obvious considering no installation is needed, as stated at the beginning of the article, therefore one less barrier.

Gentritgerlach (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't use blogs or social media posts as sources, see WP:RS for details. - MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for quick response. But I think that particular statement needs no source at all, as it is already clear. And the source for the first part of the phrase is no blog or social media post. Here is my proposal for how it could look like. Gentritgerlach (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be a bit confused, this article is about Progressive web applications (not simply progressive web pages) which are in fact installed and which are sometimes usable offline. - MrOllie (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess so. Gentritgerlach (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wired article does not support anything in the statement that it is attached to. Constant314 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It shows that the Instagram Android app, which is a native app, is able to submit actions done offline automatically as soon as an internet connection is established. While it does not explicitly state that native apps can do so in general, if one app can do it, others are technically able to do it as well. Gentritgerlach (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That is synthesis. Constant314 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gentritgerlach Your statement in your proposed edit that "progressive web applications require no installation" is incorrect. See Installability criteria. I wonder whether you have any practical experience of developing PWAs. -- Jmc (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

No. But what I meant is that they are directly able to run in the existing browser. No new software needs to be downloaded and installed like with native apps. See Progressive_web_application#App_stores. Gentritgerlach (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gentritgerlach Your statements that "that they are directly able to run in the existing browser" and "No new software needs to be downloaded" are, at best, misleading. They don't take into account (a) the 'Add to Home Screen' requirement and (b) the necessary download and installation of a Service Worker. (See Technologies.) -- Jmc (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gentritgerlach Furthermore, your statement in your proposed edit that "Native apps [can execute] more sophisticated tasks such as a task queue created offline that can be cleared automatically once an internet connection is established" is also incorrect. PWAs likewise support this functionality. (This info probably needs to be added to the article.) -- Jmc (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

table with supported browsers (badly ?) needs an update

"As of 2021, PWA features are supported to varying degrees" For SW development, a table referring to 2021 in 2024 seems badly outdated. MJost (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)