Getting HTML5 going

[Sean Cole (Pi)]

Break it up into smaller substacks and have these loaded into the main
stack as needed. HH had an example of this. It would mean that you only
update the parts that need doing. I'm looking to add this into my webapp as
we speak as eventually there will be many sections the main stack will
access.

If you wanted something pretty similar in function to Flash and Director,
Adobe have Animate.
https://helpx.adobe.com/animate/using/best-practices-tips-creating-content.html.
It's main purpose has been shifted more towards animators but still
functions just like Flash and Director with ActionScript. And deploys for
HTML5 too.
https://helpx.adobe.com/animate/how-to/convert-flash-ads-to-html5.html

Sean


On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 16:07, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> William Prothero wrote:
>
>  > I’m back working on an educational app teaching plate tectonics.
>  > When I think of pitfalls of distributing an actual app, I fondly
>  > look at web distribution, like I used to be able to do with Director
>  > in shockwave.
>
> Shockwave made many things about deployment simpler, but still required
> a one-time download and install.
>
> We can do this with LC so very easily, I'm surprised more people don't
> take advantage of it.
>
> I'm with you: deploying standalones for every little change is a
> time-eating drag.  So I stopped doing it years ago.
>
> The standalones I deliver download updates from my server, so just like
> in a browser the user always has not only the latest data, but also the
> latest UI and underlying code.
>
> Sure, this means the user has a one-time download.  But it's only one
> time, and they get a fully native app experience, with OS integration
> far beyond the limitations of a browser, and a UI completely dedicated
> to the app's task.
>
> I've had apps in the field for many years where I've delivered several
> dozen upgrades without ever needing to update the standalone, all with
> downloaded stack files.
>
> I like browsers for many things, and for content-driven works it's my
> first choice (mostly for strategy reasons rather than techincal).  But
> for serious work I prefer a dedicated native app.  My customers tell me
> they do too, and I've heard that from other devs about their customer
> feedback.
>
> No one wants the endless tedium of updating standalones, neither the
> user or us developers.  But by decoupling the standalone from the stack
> files it uses, we can update those so quickly and easily the user never
> even needs to know it's happening.
>
> Have you considered a standalone that updates its stack files via HTTP?
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Systems
>   Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>   ____________________________________________________________________
>   Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>