[Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5

Dave Burnett d_b_burnett at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 4 17:08:43 BST 2013 

>Sheesh I should charge for this stuff.
You should. :-)
One of Ron's concerns is having to ask the user to review some serious number of modules.That's why I suggested an app to flag (and possibly rectify) non-conforming LO's.
From: xerte at pgogywebstuff.com
To: xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:40:11 +0100
Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5

Sheesh I should charge for this stuff.

Here is what you do

We make a new module called Xerte HTML (for which all the code exists)
You give the Existing flash module a new properties tab called "convert"
The convert tab allows you to preview the LO in HTML5 and "convert" it to a HTML5 module (all this does is rename the LO folder and update the DB)

This way play_560 will be flash if you want it to be flash, but if you want it to be HTML 5 you click a button and you've changed AND your links all still work. From the moment you convert onwards, you have a HTML5 module. No more flash.

So no forcing, no pushing, no convincing, it is completely and utterly up to you.

Else the hoops that need jumping through aren't really jumpable through, they are break the system hoops 

----- Original Message -----
From: "For Xerte technical developers" <xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
To:"For Xerte technical developers" <xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:15:15 -0400
Subject:[Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5


I suspect it would be a bit more of a rough guideSurely (Shirley?) due to the template structure there is a pretty limited number of variations extent here.
'My' parser does AW > Xerte desktop.No help at all. ;-)

From: ronm at mitchellmedia.co.uk
To: xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:07:42 +0100
Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: HTML5

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>> 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> [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/>
> 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>> 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> [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> 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>
> 
> 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>
> 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>
> 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,en.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






_______________________________________________
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/20130404/0b473fd1/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Xerte-dev mailing list