Getting HTML5 going

[Prothero-earthlearningsol]

Richard and Sean,
Good ideas. I had considered deploying it as a standalone that has sections that udate from a server, but worried that the new security requirements from Apple, in particular, discouraged (prohibited?) downloading code. Is that not true?

Bill

William Prothero
http://es.earthednet.org

> On Mar 25, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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