[Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5

Thu Apr 4 16:07:42 BST 2013

I could see someone at admin level finding that kind of report a useful
rough guide Dave but I think the majority of issues with existing LO's would
be aesthetic and practical as much as technical and realistically I'm not
sure 'your' parser would help too much. ;-)

Great that Fay has already found one or two of the issues I mentioned but
that was only a simple example.

I agree Flash will eventually die completely but personally I suspect that
will be quite a while yet particularly in education because of all the
existing content (not just xerte) and regardless of opinion about that I
think the key point for us is a revision of your last line...

So really it's down to whether to force HTML 5 and potentially break
existing LO's or to provide a solution which allows Flash to die more
gracefully - or at least to live on until authors rather than us deicide to
kill it ;-)

Personally I'm killing it for new LO's but allowing it to live on for at
least some existing LO's.

From: xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
[mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Dave Burnett
Sent: 04 April 2013 15:43
To: For Xerte technical developers
Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5

"I know some of these issue may be fixable but how realistic is that for all
existing LO's? "

Some enterprising chap might put an app together to parse that kind of thing
out into a report. ;-)

Maybe include it as a "run first" with the 2.0 install.

All your points are salient Ron.

I just think Flash must be euthanized at some point.

So really it's down to a clean break or a slow death...

> From: ronm at mitchellmedia.co.uk
> To: xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:17:28 +0100
> Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5
> 
> Sorry this is going to be a rather long reply but I think it's an
extremely important topic. There's no right or wrong here but...
> 
> We aren't just talking about new installations we're talking about lots of
upgrades e.g. all existing organisations upgrading to 2.0. We surely
shouldn't be saying only use version 2 as a new clean install?
> 
> We also have a few to many model here e.g. the decisions and changes made
by us and what is a tiny developer community compared with tools like Moodle
benefits but also impacts many many more users and potentially thousands of
individual learning objects and pages within those learning objects. It
isn't realistic for all those users to re-check every single page within
every single LO that they've created and shared previously. At least I'd say
it's not in our interests to force them to have to do that.
> 
> It isn't just a case of technical compatibility with HTML 5. Fay and
everyone else involved here has done a great job with the conversions and
latest developments etc but I know from my own LO's and from what other
users have said even where page types are available for both already, each
LO and each page needs checking before changing the shared or embedded link
to the html 5 version. I know html 5 is the future and offers lots of
benefits but in many cases for existing LO's there would still be a
preference to share the Flash link as the default and an alternative link to
the html 5 version for mobile consumption. In many cases those LO's will be
embedded in VLE pages and lots of different places and over time tested and
refined etc for Flash based delivery including colour schemes and other
customisations which wouldn't work or apply via HTML 5. 
> 
> By only having a single play.php and other links defaulting to html 5 even
for existing LO's we risk adversely affecting thousands of existing LO's and
in some cases breaking them. I'll share a simple example below after a few
more points.
> 
> There's lots more to unpick here and I'm not sure email/mailing list is
the best format to discuss all this so perhaps a scheduled online meeting
would be a good idea? In my opinion we need to try to differentiate between
existing LO's and newly created LO's in version 2 without introducing a
barrier to upgrading. I wonder if there's a way to achieve both by
introducing a way to treat new LO's differently by default compared with
existing LO's ideally under author control for each LO?
> 
> e.g. in an install upgraded to version 2
> For existing LO's play.php and related links play the Flash version by
default
> For new LO's play.php and related links play the HTML 5 version by default
> For all LO's there's an optional property that the author can set to
determine whether HTML 5 or Flash is the default
> So this isn't auto-detection based on browser or device etc but is under
author control to change defaults. If there's also a method of doing
index.php?format=flash then fine too but I have real concern about the
scenario that we haven't had so far where changing play.php to default to
html 5 for existing LO's in an upgraded install could alter or even break
all that existing content or at least some pages within each LO.
> 
> Here's a simple example/scenario...
> 
> Let's say Nottingham upgraded their existing install to version 2 where
play.php now defaults all LO's including existing LO's to HTML 5
> How many users, LO's and individual pages would that involve checking?
> I really like the range of LO's with very visual title pages that
Julianhas shared previously via the mailing lists etc e.g.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/toolkits/play_81
> Compare that Flash view with the HTML 5 version
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/toolkits/play_html5.php?template_id=81
> Layout certainly changes
> Some browsers e.g. Chrome and Safari on iPad don't show the title page
images (not sure why that is?)
> Page 2 has very different font size via Flash and HTML 5 - not broken but
arguably not a desirable change
> Page 4 appears empty via HTML 5 - so arguably broken
> I know some of these issue may be fixable but how realistic is that for
all existing LO's? In any case it may take a long time to find and fix every
issue like this.
> 
> So just in this one example there would be a lot to check and remedy if
HTML 5 is forced for existing LO's. I know it's not just about play.php and
may involve jumping through hoops just to avoid causing these sorts of
problems but that few to many relationship says it all I think?
> 
> Just a few thoughts.
> Ron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
[mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Fay Cross
> Sent: 04 April 2013 14:06
> To: For Xerte technical developers
> Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5
> 
> I don't have a preference really as long as you can still have a link that
will force you to the Flash version if that's what you want. I think Julian
was keen for links out there already to still show the same content though
(e.g. www.nottingham.ac.uk/toolkits/play_560 to still go to the Flash
version). I might be wrong about that though - he's not here this week.
> 
> 
> John - it's textDrawing, chart, customHotspots and inventory that use the
canvas tag so won't always fully work in older browsers. There's already a
fallback in there for if audio/video tags aren't supported - it will use
Flash instead.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
[mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Smith, John
> Sent: 04 April 2013 13:52
> To: xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5
> 
> I know i'm the new guy here but I agree with Pat.
> 
> Most people will expect a considerable change from a major point upgrade
and 2.0 was always considered the HTML5 release so i think we should make
that the focus and the default...
> 
> How about a single index.php file with a format parameter. Those still
requiring flash can reroute the index and index_html5 to the opposites if
required and when we have index.php?format=flash to force flash on if really
required.
> 
> What models only work in flash anyway now, other than the majority of the
drawing model?
> 
> The only other issue is IE6/7/8 fir mainly the audio/video tags but there
are some good js libraries that will add in the html5 specific stuff and
perhaps we should resort to using those.
> 
> Regards
> 
> John Smith
> Learning Technologist
> School of Health and Life Sciences
> 
> Sent from Samsung Galaxy SII
> 
> 
> 
> "Pat @ Pgogy" <xerte at pgogywebstuff.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Two works for play and peer, though someone will need to write peer html5
and so on
> 
> It won't work for rss, syndicate - and it messes with the API ideas
> 
> And a lot of other stuff - embed codes, links - will need to be duplicated
and the difference explained?
> 
> On 4 Apr 2013, at 10:05, Fay Cross <Fay.Cross at nottingham.ac.uk
<mailto:Fay.Cross at nottingham.ac.uk%3cmailto:Fay.Cross at nottingham.ac.uk>
<mailto:Fay.Cross at nottingham.ac.uk>> wrote:
> 
> Two. Unless that will cause problems?
> 
> From: xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
<mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk%3cmailto:xerte-dev-bounces@
lists.nottingham.ac.uk> <mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
[mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Pat @ Pgogy
> Sent: 04 April 2013 09:24
> To: For Xerte technical developers
> Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5
> 
> So are we going with the two urls or the one URL approach?
> 
> Pgogy Webstuff - http://www.pgogywebstuff.com
<http://www.pgogywebstuff.com%3chttp:/www.pgogywebstuff.com/>
<http://www.pgogywebstuff.com/>
> Makers of web things of a fair to middling quality
> 
> On 28 Mar 2013, at 15:04, Tom Reijnders <reijnders at tor.nl
<mailto:reijnders at tor.nl%3cmailto:reijnders at tor.nl>
<mailto:reijnders at tor.nl>> wrote:
> 
> Op 28-3-2013 15:37, Julian Tenney schreef:
> 
> Brilliant.
> 
> 
> 1. Exporting seems to cause people a lot of problems, but I guess they do
seem to use it (rightly or wrongly). I'd prefer to have options to export
the various types of zip for either html5 or flash, I think. I have no idea
how hard this is to do? I'd love to drop this functionality because it just
seems to cause a lot of unnecessary problems, I'm not sure people really
need to export content as much as they do - but there are some valid reasons
to do it, so I suppose we're stuck with it. Tom adapted the original
exporting code, would this be something that is easy for Tom to look at? Or
reassure me that I can adapt your code easily to use different paths /
folders etc?
> I'll look into this. I need to anyways, because of SCORM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The play_html5_1234 is a good idea, yes, for consistency. On installs
where this works, does the play_html5.php?template_id= work as well?
> 
> yes the other URL will work as well.
> 
> 
> 3. Yes, everything should default to the html5 output. Peer review needs a
new URL as well. CTRL-Click can launch the flash version instead from the
wizard. I'm not sure we need browser detection: people should use the URL
they built it for; however, we should probably put something in place for
older browsers to say 'upgrade your browser' or similar? I'm guessing the
paths are easy to amend in the php?
> 
> What else do we need to look at before we can release this? This morning
we tentatively agreed to have it all ready for FRIDAY 26th APRIL. Do we need
a list of open issues that need resolving before the release? I'm thinking
of the Firefox security thing in particular, though it sounds like you're
getting close John? Also the thing with the buttons staying greyed out that
appeared recently? If Tom's SCORM work isn't ready by then, I'm not sure
it's a big problem?
> No, I don't think SCORM is a show stopper (but I'll do my utmost!)
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a titanpad here for a list of things to do:
http://titanpad.com/xottwopointoh. I want to concentrate on finishing
existing work, rather than starting anything new just now, but please add
any bugs to it as well, and we'll fix as many as we can.
> 
> An aside, is it worth starting to think about when / where we do another
AGM? If we do it outside of teaching time, we can do it in rooms here at no
cost. Maybe sometime in July?
> 
> I'm off next week, but will have some time after that to help out with
getting this finished, Julian
> 
> From: xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
<mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk%3cmailto:xerte-dev-bounces@
lists.nottingham.ac.uk> <mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
[mailto:xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Fay Cross
> Sent: 27 March 2013 17:17
> To: For Xerte technical developers
> Subject: [Xerte-dev] HTML5
> 
> Hello all
> 
> As you should know the HTML5 work is nearly complete and there are only a
couple of page types for me to complete before we can release a new version
of Toolkits with the HTML5 interface as the default view. I have a few
things that I could do with some help on before the release so if anyone can
give me a hand with them or just give your opinions it would be much
appreciated...
> 
> 
> 1. Exporting HTML projects:
> The files that would need to be in the zip would be more or less the same
as for the Flash version but using the common_html5 and models_html5 folders
instead of common/models.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Abbreviated link:
> Possibly something Ron can help with as I've noticed it's working on his
install. Can abbreviated links be made to work e.g.
www.nottingham.ac.uk/toolkits/play_html5_560
<http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/toolkits/play_html5_560%3chttp:/www.nottingham.
ac.uk/toolkits/play_html5_560>
<http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/toolkits/play_html5_560> rather than using the
full url?
> (Apologies Pat, I think you partly answered this for me previously but I
can't find it)
> 
> 
> 3. Play / Preview links:
> 
> a. Links in project properties, preview button in workspace and preview in
wizard need to be updated to go to the HTML5 version.
> 
> b. In the wizard should Ctrl-Click bring up the Flash version when
clicking normally is changed to HTML5?
> 
> c. Do you think there needs to be some browser detection that decides
which version people see? The problem I can see with this is that if we
start adding new features or pages to the HTML5 version then by sending them
to the Flash version instead they may miss out on some content. Not many of
the page types in the HTML5 version actually use HTML5 tags if that makes
sense - probably just the handful where the canvas tag is used (textDrawing,
charts etc.) so there might not be many instances where there will be
problems if you're on an older browser anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Page models:
> 
> a. John - is the flickr page finished?
> 
> b. Johnathan - I've emailed you off list about a few queries I've got with
the connector pages, I hope this is ok - I didn't want to bother everyone
else with them
> 
> c. SCORM - this isn't working at the moment but I can't quite remember
what's missing. I'll email with more details of what help I might need when
I've looked back at it
> 
> Thanks
> Fay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> 
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
<mailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk%3cmailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham
.ac.uk> <mailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> 
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Reijnders
> 
> TOR Informatica
> 
> Chopinlaan 27
> 
> 5242HM Rosmalen
> 
> Tel: 073 5226191
> 
> Fax: 073 5226196
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
<mailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk%3cmailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham
.ac.uk> <mailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
<mailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk%3cmailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham
.ac.uk> <mailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glasgow Caledonian University is a registered Scottish charity, number
SC021474
> 
> Winner: Times Higher Education's Widening Participation Initiative of the
Year 2009 and Herald Society's Education Initiative of the Year 2009.
>
http://www.gcu.ac.uk/newsevents/news/bycategory/theuniversity/1/name,6219,en
.html
> 
> Winner: Times Higher Education's Outstanding Support for Early Career
Researchers of the Year 2010, GCU as a lead with Universities Scotland
partners.
>
http://www.gcu.ac.uk/newsevents/news/bycategory/theuniversity/1/name,15691,e
n.html
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/xerte-dev/attachments/20130404/1c018009/attachment-0001.html>