I have the following user agent, picked up from a website log:
Mozilla/5.0+(Linux;+Android+4.4.4;+Nexus+5+Build/KTU84P)+AppleWebKit/537.36+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/37.0.2062.117+Mobile+Safari/537.36
How do I know which device/browser - Both android and Apple are mentioned.
Browsers - both Chrome and Safari are mentioned here!
thanks
It specifically mentions Nexus 5. Seems pretty clear that's Android. You got lucky, the device name was in the string.
The reason it mentions all of those is for compatibility purposes. If developers target specific devices by looking at the user agent string, then if you want your device to have all those features, you have to include the string so that it knows your device is also capable of the features of those devices.
For more info, see Why “Mozilla” string is present on all browser's User Agent?.
Related
I decided to use the Housez theme as it advertises as super easy and flexible to use. I am not a web designer but have managed to get my site up and running. www.islandestates.net The problem I have is that there is no search option for the properties on a mobile device? The desktop version works well but how do I get a search box onto the mobile version?
The support from Housez is non existent, I have submitted a request to favetheme but they never reply.
Any help would be aprreciated.
Malcolm
I still cannot get my chromecast into developer mode. I tried compiling the sample android app and my chromecast doesn't appear in the list of devices. I have indeed checked "Send this Chromecast's serial number when checking for updates" and rebooted my device. I even let it sit overnight to give it time to contact Google. When i got to http://[my chromecast ip]:9222 I get connection refused. I can ping it though. And http://[my chromecast ip]:8008/apps/ returns an XML response.
When I first sent the request to Google, they said the whitelist was backlogged but shortly thereafter they said the backlog was cleared.
Any ideas besides the fact that maybe whitelisting didn't work on Google's backend?
Even I had same problem earlier
In earlier version of chrome-cast app (for android) there was an issue Send this Chromecast's serial number when checking for updates is uncheking always, So I removed that app and again installed new version. That bug was removed now. OPtion is by default Checked.
If it doesn't work then try to use other device. Surely that will solve your problem
I would like to add the ability to cast my chrome packaged app to a google chromecast device.
So far google states that all you have to do is add
to your page and the API will inject itself.
For me that doesn't happen. No code is injected.
Am I doing something wrong?
There doesn't seem to be a demo showing this type of capability.
EDIT:
I just wanted to clarify a bit. All that I would like to do is display my app to a screen.
I have no media. I simply want to display it exactly as the chrome extension in the chrome browser would.Therefore I would follow the directions for a sender only. The app is packaged so it is running only CSS/JS/HTML5 code. The app is designed to run offline.
Steps I've taken to cast:
1. I've added the extra bit to the HTML line:
2. I've followed the whitelisting, to the best of my understanding, by adding my "website address" to the chrome extension. So I've added the only two address that should matter.
127.0.0.1
192.168.1.106
There is a good chance Content Security Policy is blocking the implementation of the cast API being injected. I see that you've filed Issue 287254: Google cast (chromecast) ability for packaged apps, and suspect we will need to wait for it to be implemented in a packaged apps compliant way.
You must whitelist your device and your Chrome app. See here for more details:
https://developers.google.com/cast/whitelisting#whitelist-chrome
I am looking for something that will help me learn how to set up my site so that when people go to it there is the regular version and the mobile version. Problem I am having is that most of the sites I see on google are pay sites that help you set that up. Can I just make two versions of my site and load them both on my hosting? Also how does it know when to load the mobile versus the regular? These are the types of things I am looking to learn, any suggestions of places to start?
Please please please make sure you do the following:
Only do a mobile version if it adds value.
If a user requests a deep link from a mobile device, don't redirect to the mobile home page
Allow the user to choose to view the full version
Make sure tablets such as the iPad uses the full version by default
Don't serve WML to the hi-res smartphones such as the iPhone
If your full sized website is unusable on a phone, consider tweaking it to be more suitable (don't print content text too wide).
Modern iPhones and iPads are perfectly capable of handling most full sized websites, there is little need for a mobile version unless it actually improves the user experience. I hate to get redirected to a baby interface that doesn't provide the information I need.
Good examples of mobile versions include:
Google website
Gmail website
Mediocre examples include:
Any blogpress site
Bad examples include
anything that uses WML
Here's Apple's advice on providing mobile versions to the iPad:
Note that the Safari on iPad user
agent string contains the word
"Mobile", but does not contain the
word "iPhone". If you are currently
serving mobile content to any browser
that self-identifies as "Mobile", you
should modify your user agent string
checks to look for iPad and avoid
sending it the wrong version of your
site. The version numbers in this
string are subject to change over time
as new versions of Safari on iPad
become available, so any code that
checks the user agent string should
not rely on version numbers.
Something to look into would be the #mobile css media type, which is used to load a different styles when loading in a mobile device. I am not sure which devices support it, but I imagine it would be most of the popular models. As far as your suggestion, you can certainly host two separate sites, but I would defiantly go through Alex's suggestions before you go through the trouble.
http://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/
Alex had some good suggestions, but if you really want to serve up a specific version based on mobile or non-mobile you can take a look at the http header. In some cases the User Agent will give it away, but not always. Check out this link for details: http://detectmobilebrowsers.mobi/
I'm tyring to get phonegap up and running on blackberry storm (9530 simulator). I had been testing my webapp from withing BB's built in browser, and it was looking ok, but then it totally bit once I tried to look at the some code from within phonegap, even though I was pointing phonegap to the same url (I hadn't yet gotten to the point of running code locally on the device).
I tried a test case on google and got similiar results. see below. I suspect that I'm missing something basic here. I would have expect both images to be nearly identical.
Browser
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBB9530WebGoogle.jpg
Phonegap
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBB9530PgGoogle.jpg
[Update]
To shed some light on what is happening, I ran the browser and the embedded browser (phonegap) against the W3 mobile web acid test: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobile-test/
I definitely notice differences between the two, but I don't yet know the 'why' and the 'how-to-address'.
Acid via built-in browser
(source: eleganttechnologies.com)
BTW - I ran this earlier today and got a couple more green square than just now.
Acid via browser embedded into phonegap
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBb9530PgAcid.jpg
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about phonegap, but have a pretty good theory. By default the embedded browser control on BlackBerry uses an older version of the rendering engine than the BlackBerry browser itself does.
At the BlackBerry developer conference last year, a talk was given about this, and there's an undocumented option to use the newer rendering engine. \
The option ID is 17000 (yes, a magic number, which could change, use at your own risk etc), and should be set to true. Not sure how you'd pass this option through phonegap (I'm not familiar with the toolkit) but using the BlackBerry APIs it's something like:
BrowserContent content;
...
content.getRenderingOptions().setProperty(RenderingOptions.CORE_OPTIONS_GUID, 17000, true);
I don't know the specifics of the browsers you are using, but I do know that most of the big sites will detect your OS + browser combination to decide what HTML to show you.
If Google is seeing a different user agent, you might get a generic mobile version of the HTML instead os the Blackberry specific HTML you get for the built in browser.
If you have access to a web server, try hitting it with both browser setups and see if there is any difference in the log file. That might tell you something interesting.
As we can see in your Acid tests...
One browser (the built-in one) is reporting correctly as a BlackBerry9530, and the other (phonegap) is not presenting the user-agent ["Testing with ."].
In this case, Google is providing you with the default view of their homepage, whereas when you are reporting yourself as a BlackBerry device, you will get the BlackBerry specific rendering.
By the sounds of things, using phonegap is removing the default user-agent (most probably because it's not recognising your device). As phonegap is open-source, the best bet is to get in there, and debug it and find out what happens with the user-agent when the http requests leave the device and track it back from there.
Maybe one browser has capabilities that another one does not?
Hm. By looking at the screenshot I would say that the second page is probably missing some resources. It may be missing some images, scripts and the CSS files, which would explain different l&f. Knowing how Blackberry Browser Field API works, I would guess that the implementation that uses the BrowserField was not done correctly. Just my guess. In addition to that, when the browser field is initialized the caller needs to configure it properly by enabling the appropriate browser features - scripts, styles etc. Again, the API is done in a very weird way, I have gotten myself into this trap once. When setting the options, you cannot just create one mask (like CSS | WML | SCRIPT) and make one call. Options are numeric and, I believe, non-overlapping - but you still need to call the API for setting each option independently.
Also the way asynchronous loading of the resources for BrowserField takes time to understand.
Just my $0.02.