Related
I'am creating a new feature for my iOS app. After I publish the app I wants to show the new feature only for 50% of the users, so I can do some testing which version makes more orders. I have no idea how to do it without using some third parties like Optimizely.
Also is it possible to do this using Google Tag Manager(GTM).
So can someone please help me to figure this out.
Thank you very much for your time.:)
It’s hard to do it on your own, though not impossible of course: Optimizelys of the world are just programs. You’ll need to solve these problems:
Targeting: Some algorithm that will assign user session to either control or (one of) treatment(s). This has to be random, of course, or you may as well stop there.
Routing: Send sessios to the targeted experience.
Logging: You’ll need to intelligently log events from sessions as they traverse their targeted experience. These may be many, so be careful not to add latency to your app path. Your statistical analysis will be based on these.
Experience stability: how do you ensure (if you do) that a returning user sees the same experience he’s already seen.
Note as well, that Optimizely will only help you if all your changes are on the device and not on the server. If you need to instrument server changes as well, you’ll have to look into Sitespect or Variant.
I finally figured out how to do the A/B testing with 'Google Tag Manager'(GTM).
In GTM you can create a variable called 'Google Analytics Content Experiment'. With this variable you can select how many percentage of users going to see each Variation(your experiments). You can create up to 10 variations for single experiment.
GTM is so cool and powerful. GTM contains so many features that could save lot of time and I totally recommend it for anyone who is going to do A/B testing.
I'm thinking about implementing basic voice control for an iOS app. The app will have a dictionary with about 30 entries, where each entry is a first and last name. When the user speaks to the app, the app will need to select the correct name from the list of ~30.
One thing I'm not sure about: the list of names is defined by each user of the app. So every user will have a different set of names.
I'm wondering if there is a an open source library that is customizable on this level? My biggest concern is that I won't be able to let the user define the dictionary.
Any ideas on how this could be done?
Thanks in advance, and please forgive the vague question :)
#### ### ### ###
Update: I am aware of the OpenEars library. Can't find anything on their site on if they allow limited, user-defined dictionaries. I can see that an app developer can set a custom dictionary, but nothing on if the app's end user could do this. Thanks for the help!
OpenEars allows you to define your own vocabulary out of the box using http://www.politepix.com/openears/#LanguageModelGenerator_Class_Reference
You can ignore all words outside of the vocabulary you define by using the Rejecto plugin.
You can do something similar with Julius, but I'm told OpenEars has better acoustic models.
I have used Julius in the past it worked very well on a Linux machine.
Now for iOS, some guys creaceed have compiled it for our lovely platform and propose a SDK.
I have no clue on how good it is, but at least there is a trial version you could check. In my opinion for your purpose (1/30 possibilities) it should work pretty well.
I'm working on the requirements & specifications for a new iOS app intended for use by certain professionals working "in the field". All day long for weeks on end, these folks have a sizable reporting burden to their superiors using standardized forms that track all different kinds of information. Traditionally, those forms are in PDF, and are simply printed and filled out in ink and then shared with the dozens to hundreds of others working the same operation. Sometimes they'll use a PDF with form fields so the data can be typed and then printed as part of the form. Either way, given their workflow, time and stress pressures, and other factors, it's not a very productive way to get the standardized reporting forms done.
The app we're spec'ing would offer an iOS (and Android, if possible -- but secondary or even tertiary requirement at this point) user interface for tracking the data they enter in the field, organizing it in a logical manner for each individual user, and with the press of a button, take all that data and automatically create a PDF file of it using the standardized form.
Of course, the forms are STRICTLY and rigidly standardized in this industry, and any deviation in format, structure, or presentation is simply not tolerable.
So I was approaching the project by thinking the app would maintain an internal repository of the original standardized forms from the accrediting organization, with each possible data area defined as a field. The app would:
open the necessary PDF form for the task at hand;
parse its dictionary to identity the specific data fields;
for every single field, identify the relevant data from the iOS app's own user interface and data tables, and assign that data to the corresponding field from the PDF/dictionary
export the PDF to a NEW PDF file, which the app would either email or store through iCloud, Dropbox, or some other form of file sharing.
The catch with #4 is that that PDF file must remain editable by standard PDF applications on Windows and Mac (Acrobat, Preview, etc.), so all the fields need to remain. And the PDF should be viewable just the same on either Windows or Mac.
Now, at NO time will the PDF (neither the original nor the exported final document) EVER need to be displayed inside the iOS app, nor would it make much sense to be able to do so.
I don't know if any of this is possible. This is our first iOS project, and we've been leaning towards building the app using Moai or Corona or some other framework to save development time and make porting across platforms easier. That said, if it cannot be done using Lua and one of these frameworks (I remain skeptical...they seem HIGHLY geared towards games), we're not opposed to doing it directly in Objective C and building an Android version some time down the road.
But either way, I'm at a loss in assessing whether this is even a practical undertaking. Our requirements are clear, and frankly if this can't be done, the project won't be pursued any further. But I could definitely use some help from you folks in identifying what my options are, whether I can do it in Lua, and what SDK(s) would be most useful in accomplishing this.
Based on what you've said, it seems that there is little reason to do the PDF-based part of the work on the mobile device itself since:
you don't need to display it on the ipad
you plan to email it or store it in the cloud
if you write this for iOS you will have to write again for Android as you've mentioned
Can you simplify the mobile part of your requirement by focusing on the data-collection and validation, then firing off to a server to do the document production? That will give you a lot more flexibility in the tools that you can use to merge the data into PDF docs. If so you could look at creating PDFs or populating the fields from code using something like iText (C# or Java). If you don't want to build your own back end server you could try something like Docmosis Cloud - but that might not allow you to get your precise layouts.
Certainly the catch you mentioned - needing to keep the PDFs editable with their fields is a significant gotcha in all cases. If you could convince the stakeholders that it is better to generate the final documents from your system (generate draft, review, update data, generate again etc) - rather than generating editable documents that you then lose control and tracability over, then you will be miles ahead.
Hope that helps.
Did you consider just generating a new pdf using an image of the form as the background to the pdf and just writing the user's data into the required areas over the form image. Would reduce the complexity of trying to parse the original form PDFs.
That's a point of worthwhile discussion, but one we don't have an ideal answer on. I tend to think of that as the almost perfect scenario -- it'd be considerably easier to develop. There are two key issues with this approach that have made us table it except as a very last resort:
The users of this product would be working in the field. That field could be quite literally anywhere--the streets of Manhattan, a disaster-stricken area with infrastructure that's been severely damaged or even destroyed, or the most war-ravaged third world country. If it were the streets of, say, Manhattan, there's no problem--their iOS or Android device will have 3G or Wi-Fi access just about anywhere they go. In the latter two scenarios (which are arguably more common in this industry), that connectivity may be very limited. The concern is whether the end user's ability to be productive or to see and share data with their colleagues will be too greatly restricted if they don't have a decent signal. To be fair though, even today they often aren't even using mobile devices, forcing them to go back to a headquarters type location or use radios to share information, effectively negating my point here. But if we're not going to significantly increase their productivity in the field, it just gives us pause to think through whether or not we have enough of a value proposition to ask them to fairly significantly change their methods of doing things.
To your latter point, no there's no convincing the stakeholders that this new system is the better approach. Even if there were, it would take years to do so. These forms are a part of a well-defined, decades-old standard used by literally thousands of organizations.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Stackoverflow User Luke wrote in this answer:
The boundaries between desktop and web
applications have really blurred.
Whilst once upon a time the nature of
developing for the web was totally
different to developing for the
desktop, nowadays you find the same
concepts [...] cropping up in both.
Since I am continually looking to improve my existing web applications, I'd like to know which common features of "classic" desktop applications do most web application miss?
For example, most desktop apps prompt the user to save unsaved data leaving a page or closing a window - a feature that many web applications miss. It could be that some feature aren't even necessary or are compensated in some other way. Maybe there are features which can't be implemented in (a classic) web application?
The thing you'll never be able to imitate in a web application is the low latency and instant feedback of a well written desktop app.
Even with the ajax techniques to load only parts of the pages, there usually is a noticeable delay in the response (or maybe it's just me and my narrowband). You're (for at least a few more years) just bound to the orders of magnitude of speed difference between network access and no network access.
The Undo button.
Right-click application-specific pop-up menus is the thing I've noticed most.
Usually right-clicking on a browser application will bring up the browser pop-up menu rather than an application-specific menu.
Keyboard support on most web applications is weak to non-existent. This is getting better than it used to be but you will still find plenty of mainstream sites that can't even get the tab order to work correctly. Most sites don't handle focus correctly and force users to use the mouse to activate even the simplest of data entry forms. You can usually forget about accelerator key support.
You can't pull the plug when the application hangs. (Yes, I'm serious)
For fairness is to mention, that desktop-applications miss a common feature of webapps: XSS (Cross-Site-Scripting). ;-)
Support for Big Files.
Integration with the client OS.
Support for special Input/Ouput Devices.
3D or anything else computationally intensive (specific to each users).
Advanced graphics: I've written a C program that draws a surface joining Bézier patches in a simple window and I had to tweak it in unimaginable ways to get it to draw in a decent time. I can't imagine that being ported to the web.
I mean, doing advanced graphics is not what every application needs, but if displaying nontrivial pictures is slow, then we shouldn't even talk about animations.
One Proper Macintosh menu bar support.
If you're a long-term Mac user, even with two large monitors, you have muscles that swoop to the top of the screen for actions, comfortable in the knowledge that the infinite depth effect will kick in and you can slide along that edge, picking from the menus.
No in-browser app can deliver that experience.
Two Command-keys, which is a side-effect of the menu bar not belonging to the app but goes a bit beyond that - good desktop apps have command-key shortcuts (accelerators to you Windows guys, I'm not just talking the Mnemonics which work with alt-key support). Great desktop apps show little reminders next to the buttons that have accelerators, when you hold down the appropriate modifier keys and wait a fraction of a second.
Three Smarter tables. There are a lot of apps where some kind of spreadsheet view works as a paradigm, including editing, sorting, resizing columns. I think I've seen some odd examples of partial support but a good table in a web app is still a bit of a dancing bear.
Four Used to be right-clicking but I'm finding more and more apps that do this properly, like Kerio's excellent webmail engine. It is still missing in enough web apps to be worth emphasizing.
Displaying application request/process status or messages on Taskbar or Status bar.
For the web, Javascript can be used to update text on status bar, but its not a common usage.
The usability benefits of standard GUI elements that look and behave uniformly across applications.
(Although this will surely change as web app developers adopt certain GUI elements and patterns that are considered best-practice, notably by eventually using the same libraries, e.g. for drag-and-drop.)
A common feature of "classic" desktop applications is the ability to work without an internet connection. I miss that in Web applications.
For example, MS word works without an internet connection, but you need to be connected if you want to use Google docs.
Of course, it does not matter if the application requires an internet connection anyway. For example, if its a feed reader, I have to connect to the internet, whether I use a desktop reader or an online reader.
Drag and drop from Finder/Explorer into the web app. And vice-versa.
The ComboBox is the most notable widget omission.
On the web, lack of desktop features such as popup dialogues is actually a boon, making for a simpler interaction experience. Think also of the autosave draft feature of Gmail vs. the desktop convention of prompting the user to save.
So consider carefully before trying to reconstruct that desktop feature in your web app.
Decent help. Seems to always be an afterthought, if it's even implemented...
Desktop integration (may change if we get online desktops)
Offline use (does exist but it is early days)
(Reliable) Responsiveness
Reliability generally (somewhat debatable as there are pros and cons - e.g. your data is probably better backed up online, however security generally is less in your control with an online app, and if the network connection fails an online app tends to freeze or fail horribly.)
Blue Screen of Death
A task-specific UI with no extra controls. A web app, in addition to all the controls of the web app, also has back, next, bookmarks, etc buttons. You end up with an extra inch-high set of buttons that don't directly support the task at hand.
This isn't necessarily a programming feature, but the audience of an application will be different. For a web application you are cutting out a complete segment of your audience (those with slow or no internet access). While this is a relatively low number, it is a difference between a desktop application and a web application.
I am designing a localized web app. I am leaning on auto-detect browser language setting. But I notice a number of respectable sites asking the user to select a language. Is there any usability issue you know of (from actual experiences out there) with just auto-detecting user language?
Thanks.
Give me a choice
Remember my choice
Use the auto-detect as default
Make transition easy
In many situation I prefer or even need the "original" over my local one, bad translations or different content being the major reason.
If you register multiple domains, you can base your auto-detect on that: When foo.com redirects me to foo.de, or otherwise shows me a german interface, it is actively ignoring my choice to go to foo.com.
MSDN did insist on showing me atrocious automatic translations and ALWAYS made me click to go to the readable, understandable english one (that's a step up: when they introduced it, the default selection for changing the language was something like Afrikaans).
Make transition easy: i.e. make it easy to go to the counterpart of the current page in a different language. Amazon often succeeds when I change ".com" to ".de", but then it fails to lead me to the german translation of the item. That's not always possible, as that requires each local view having the same structure and a 1:1 page mapping. But generally, you have to weight above requirements against other constraints of the project.
[edit] MSDN got better now :)
I would suggest to autodetect the language and display the site in this language or the default languge (probably english) if the translation is not available. Additionally present the user with a selection of languages on top or bottom of your page. The names of the languages should be written in the target language.
Don't do it like that: English, German, Italian.
But: English, Deutsch, Italiano.
Obviously there is the usability problem that you might detect a language that the user doesn't understand. How are you going to do the detection? Don't think everybody has their browser set to the correct language. IP-Adresses are also a very bad indicator for the users language.
Practical example: YouTube tried to convince me for a week or so to use the Japanese version, though I can't read Japanese. Not very helpful. Microsoft is also determined to serve me automatically translated versions of there documentation when I just want to read the English one.
So don't try to tell your users which language they're supposed to prefer, let them decide for themselves.
I really hate non-configurable auto-detection because a lot of applications are translated more than imperfectly. I would rather read perfect English than bad Russian. For example, some terms do not translate in a reasonable way, and trying to translate everything makes localized version faintly ridiculous.
Also some applications can not translate new features fast enough, leading to a mixed language.
So I always prefer to have a choice, and choose the version that is native to the application author -- for the best language (unless it is a language I do not know).
Update:
One situation when it has gone beyond ridiculous is DB2 (or its client tools, not sure), which forced me to install a Russian version, but all errors in this version were shown as "???????? ??? ??? ??".
Yes: at work, we have a Windows XP deployed with 'English' language (because we have worldwide site and only one kind Windows to deploy with only one kind of settings when it comes to language).
Yet all out applications must run in French. The auto-detect feature alone would not be enough for an appropriate display of the labels.
Sometimes when you are trying to describe something to a user over the phone and you are in a different location, it is very annoying when you are both looking at the same URL, but see different results. You might even go so far as to include the language in the URL similar to how wikipedia does it (e.g. en.wikipedia.org).
Also sometimes a user will be on a friend's computer and try to access a website but won't see it in their preferred language, because of the language settings on the computer.
I think the best solution would be to allow the user to override the setting, but default it to the auto-detected language.
I agree that the auto-detect is not enough.
Not many users know the settings for selecting their language. Therefore the settings will often be the default and therefore incorrect (for non-english users).