47 Journal of EAHIL 2015; Vol. 11 (2): 36-38

Feature Article

BackgroundSmartphones are so associated with apps these days,that some of you might not even believe me when Itell you that the original iPhone launched in 2007didn’t have an app store. Steve Jobs’ original visionfor the smartphone was for developers to usemodern web technology standards to write apps thatrun in the browser; so called “web apps”. Instead,developers started hacking their phones to be ableto write “native” apps that looked just like thepreloaded ones, and Apple was forced to release anofficial software development kit and the app storethe following year. The rest is history, but thediscussion about what’s better, native versus webapps, has been going on ever since.Native apps are built specifically for the intendedplatforms, which means they are usually prettier,faster and what users most likely expect whentapping an icon on their home screen, but the webway of doing things got stronger around 2011 when“responsive web design” was introduced. Thistechnique allowed websites and apps to share thesame code for all different screen sizes instead ofhaving separate websites for mobile and desktop. Atypical example originating from this time was tohave a native app for mobile, and a website madefor desktop use. This was the case for us at theKarolinska Institutet University Library until earlierthis year when we retired our native app in favour of

a responsive website. This article describes how thatdecision came to be, and why I believe it’s right forthe future.

The app declineOur “KIB Mobile” app for iOS and Android wasintroduced to users in April 2011 as a way to offermobile access to our services and information. It wasdownloaded about 13,000 times during its lifetime(70% for iOS and 30% for Android), and updated tosupport and match the general look and feel of threenew iOS versions and just as many new Android OSiterations.In late 2012, we started the UX and pre-study workneeded to build a new and improved website. Whenit was time to decide the technical details in 2013,“responsive web design” had become a strong trendthat would’ve been too foolish to ignore, so thedecision came down to building a website thatwould work just as well for small screens as for bigones. The experience of viewing and navigatingwould be optimal no matter if it was viewed on adesktop computer, tablet or a phone.We also wanted to try and find a better workflow forthe app, which organisationally was tied to ourwebsite, from where it was pulling data andinformation. Content was made specifically for theapp because of differences in visual and technicaldesign. This situation with very little content parity

AbstractNative apps have become the norm of mobile interaction with digital services, but it’s an expensive way to reachusers. With responsive web design, a more inclusive and accessible experience can be crafted for all mobile usersinstead of just a majority. This article describes the move from a native library app to a responsive website, andwhy it is right for the future.

Key words: mobile applications; internet; web browser; forecasting.

Abandoning native apps to become future friendlyMikael JergefeltKarolinska Institutet University Library, Stockholm, Sweden

Address for correspondence: Mikael Jergefelt, Karolinska Institutet Universitetsbiblioteket Huddinge, 8:100, 14183 Huddinge,Sweden. Tel: +46 8 524 84 016 E-mail: mikael.jergefelt@ki.se

48Journal of EAHIL 2015; Vol. 11 (2): 36-38

Abandoning native apps to become future friendly

made the app difficult to work with for staff, andusers still had to rely on the website designed fordesktop computers to get some things done fromtheir small screen phones.Maintaining an app takes time and effort to keep upto date with the latest hardware and software. Tosupport new operating system versions there’s alsoa big risk you need to drop support for older ones tokeep development practical. Using a developmentframework that supported shared code between thedifferent phone platforms made a huge differencefor us and saved a lot of hours and manpower. Theoriginal plan was to leverage this even further forcontent with a responsive website, but when it wastime to deal with the app specific parts in thewebsite development phase, it became painstakinglyclear the app was superfluous.All of a sudden, the app’s only advantage was that itwas a native app. It loaded faster, and wasstreamlined for certain tasks, but there was nothingyou could not do just as well on the responsivewebsite, which now also contained the full libraryexperience on a mobile device, compared to theselective features of the native app. This motivatedthe decision to discontinue the app instead ofputting time and resources into updating it to workalongside the new website. There was no way tojustify having two different solutions for oneproblem. In our case, mobile access to the library’scontent and services was now clearly best solvedwith a responsive website, which as a bonus alsomade us more future friendly.

Being future friendly“Future friendly” in this context is a phrase coinedby a group of web and UX designers who released amanifesto in 2011 about web standards, contentstrategy and responsive design among other thingsto tackle the accelerating pace of technologicalchange. They meant that our current processes andstandards have reached their breaking points andwanted to start a discussion about how to adapt anddeal with the increasing device diversity likedesktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones, featurephones and smartwatches etc. Their solution is“future friendly thinking” and involvesacknowledging and embracing unpredictabilitywhen creating content and contexts in which usersinteract with digital products and services (1).

Well-structured content is an essential part of futurefriendliness since you can never know how it will beconsumed in the future. Brad Frost, one of thecreators of the manifesto, writes: “Instead of chasingdown the platforms du jour, we should recognize thefact that our content now needs to reach a lot moreplaces and turn inward to invest in our contentinfrastructure” (2). He also emphasises, “get yourcontent ready to go anywhere because it’s going togo everywhere” (3).With “KIB Mobile”, iOS and Android were the onlysupported platforms because that’s what most of ourusers had on their phones. Reaching users ofanother platform such as Windows Phone with anative app would have required us to develop andmaintain yet another version built on top ofadditional proprietary software and technology outof our control. Compare this to our responsivewebsite that has a single code base, is built on openweb standards, and supports pretty much anysmartphone out there, even if it’s running ageingsystems such as webOS. We also put ourselves ingood position to support possible future consumerproducts with Tizen, Jolla or even holograms. If it’sgot a web browser, it will be viewable. It might notbe as fast and pretty as a native app, but it’s inclusiveand accessible for all mobile users instead of just amajority. The great thing about building things withstandard web technologies is that you don’t need toknow exactly what the future will look like. It’s prettyfuture proof to assume web technologies will still bepresent in anything that’s connected to the Internet.

ConclusionsBeing future friendly was never something thataffected the decision to move away from apps, butit’s what makes me believe we made the right choicefor the future. Instead of focusing on an exclusivemajority of our users with a couple of native apps,we can now offer a relatively full and true mobileexperience for everyone without breaking a sweatusing responsive web design. We’re currently in theprocess of deconstructing our second app, SwedishMeSH, previously featured in JEAHIL (4), whichwill have even more to gain from taking futurefriendly routes when it comes to focused design andagnostic content to be able to stay relevant on asmany future devices as possible, for as long aspossible.

49 Journal of EAHIL 2015; Vol. 11 (2): 36-38

Mikael Jergefelt

The more I think about it, the more I believe inSteve Jobs’ original vision for the smartphone. Webapps and websites may not have been what peopleexpected or wanted to use on their phones in 2007,but a very sympathetic initial direction for thefuture, that perhaps just was introduced before itstime.

Submitted on invitation.Accepted on 4 May 2015.

REFERENCES

1. Future Friendly [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2015 Apr13]. Available from: http://futurefriendlyweb.com

2. Frost B. For a future-friendly web [Internet].2012 [cited 2015 Apr 13]. Available from:http://alistapart.com/article/for-a-future-friendly-web

3. Wachter-Boettcher S. Future-ready content[Internet]. 2012 [cited 2015 Apr 13]. Availablefrom: http://alistapart.com/article/future-ready-content

4. Jergefelt M. Swedish MeSH goes mobile. Journalof the European Association for HealthInformation and Libraries. 2012;8(1):34.