[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Universal Windows Platform apps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

[edit]

Should we keep the present name by WP:COMMONNAME or should we adopt the official name which is immediately referenced in the introduction? --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoang the Hoangest
"Official" is a taboo word in Wikipedia. We always go by WP:COMMONNAME.
By the way, sorry for accidentally removing {{Windows Phone}}. I put it back. I meant to remove {{Microsoft APIs}} only because the latter does not list this article. The only API discussed in this article is "Universal App platform". I am thinking about moving the Category:Windows APIs to the redirect instead.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 10 search box refers to these as "Trusted Windows Store app". Metro-style was simply a codename used in development. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151: Do you have a purpose from repeating Dogmaticeclectic's sentence from three years ago?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft is also officially using the term "Universal Windows Platform" (UWP) ViperSnake151  Talk  01:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151: Yes, and the article mentions both "Universal Windows Platform" and "UWP". What is your point?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Codename Lisa How come you can never add articles to templates, with Sunrise Calendar you removed the {{Microsoft}} template because it wasn't mentioned despite being an acquisition, the easier thing at the time to me would be adding the article to the template as opposed to removing the template from the article, later someone added Sunrise Calendar to the template and it had to be moved back into the article, seemed completely unnecessary and prior to adding it to the {{Windows Phone}} template this article wasn't mentioned either, it all just seems redundant. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I do add articles to templates. Also I do what is correct, not what is easy.
Microsoft has millions of software products. But you don't see any of them of {{Microsoft}}. That's because {{Microsoft}} is a company template only; it only list the top important software products that constitute 90%+ of the company's revenue. But Sunrise Calendar can be added to List of Microsoft software. Perhaps you'd like to do the honors?
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV violation

[edit]

"Left: Traditional desktop app; elaborate and crowded even without contents" reads as a violation of WP:NPOV to me. | Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Naypta
You should not mistake "neutral point of view" with "neutralized point of view". In neutral point of view, we describe something as is, no more and no less, without passing judgment on it. "Neutralized view" seeks to eliminate or replace words that may evoke strong senses.
The desktop app is showing 60 user interface gadgets plus two rulers and the chrome consisting of title bar, two scroll bars one system menu, four window control buttons and a thick border. Compared with the other app, which is showing only one UI gadget and one hairline border, yes, in all the fairness, the desktop app is crowded.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this article reads like an opinionated PR piece that tries to shame other types of software. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see how it seems opinionated and the content seems to be well sourced and verified, also any usage of Microsoft's terms is quoted to make sure that the reader understands that the editors don't take these weasel words too serious. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151: I asked for your feedback two years ago. Why didn't you say that back then? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, because I apparently did not respond two years ago, all of my comments are invalid? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um... First, you should actually comment. Which words? Where? and What objection?
Only after you make the comment I can tell whether it is valid or not. (Although, you have never made invalid comments.) Of course, if it is about something other than Naypta's issue, please kindly open another thread.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Universal Apps article as a successor

[edit]

Per WP:COMMONNAME and according to Google Trends Universal Apps is now a more popular and a more common term than Metro-style apps, which was never really a COMMONNAME to begin with (it was always Metro apps). WikIan -(talk) 06:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikIan
Metro-style apps are not all universal apps, even though Microsoft wishes they were. And we already have a Universal Windows Platform article.
Also, I've told you several times, but it seems I need saying it again: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Hence, it very well concerns itself with stuff that are not trendy anymore. In Wikipedia, notability is not temporary. Once something becomes notable, it stays so.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Codename Lisa, I fully acknowledge, as a developer, that metro apps are not universal apps, but they are "Windows apps" and per WP:COMMONNAME that should be this article's title. I also never said to delete this article, and fully understand its existence/importance as well. However, universal apps (aside from UWP) is also very important, and now even more important than metro-style apps, so does it deserve its own article? WikIan -(talk) 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"but they are "Windows apps" and per WP:COMMONNAME"
You need to read the WP:COMMONNAME's contents, not just its title! "Windows apps" is ambiguous and does not fit the bill for being the article title. "App" simply means "application" or "computer program"; I once showed 25 sources to that effect. There is nothing in "Windows app" that suggests it is referring to those (frankly) low-quality mobile apps based on Metro design language and Windows Runtime. Same goes for "Modern apps". "Windows Store apps" is now Microsoft's official name, and I expect one day it will replace Metro-style app as the title, but now its ambiguous aspect has too much weight. (Windows Store also sells desktop apps.)
"So does it deserve its own article?"
Not everything that becomes trendy automatically merits its own article. If you do create an article for it, all you end up with is a content fork. So, unless by some miracle we come up with enough content to exceed the size specified by WP:SIZERULE, Metro-style apps and Universal Windows Platform are enough.
"I also never said to delete this article [...]" Huh? I never said you did! But I can't help but noticing that you reading too much into what is written is the source of all the disputes between you and me. As an encyclopedia writer, one must be patient, assume very little and have means to achieve more than just one POV.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: So, I'm withdrawing my stance here. However, I think that Universal Apps will become more and more prevalent and therefore require its own article someday. Thanks, WikIan -(talk) 09:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WikIan: I have a question for you though: Can you give me an example of one thing that you can say in article titled "Universal Apps" but not in article titled "Universal Windows Platform"? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of universal apps, how they are cross platform. The design, layout, Microsoft design language 2, touch and mouse optimization, new developer options in the store, etc. WikIan -(talk) 17:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, everything this article is already saying. —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be historical and limited to ONLY Windows 8.x

[edit]

This article should be revised to be only about Windows Store apps for Windows 8.x. Windows Store apps have evolved so much in Windows 10 that the difference between metro style apps made for Windows 8 and Windows 10 are significant. In fact, they look as though they are made for completely different platforms. The Store apps designed for Windows 10 and its attribution should be described in the article on Universal Windows Platform. I suggest that the introductory article be written to describe that these apps are apps designed for Windows 8 to be distributed through the Windows Store.

The philosophy between these apps and Store apps in Windows 10 are also different enough for this article to be strictly about Store apps in Windows 8. Recently Phil Spencer, MS's Xbox Division head stated Microsoft's intension to open up Windows Store apps even more, in reference to criticisms on UWP versions of AAA games such as, Gears of War Ultimate Edition for Windows 10.

This article should NOT be updated to be about UWP apps in Windows 10. This is because the restrictions of Windows 8's versions of store apps played an IMPORTANT roll in the history of computing. These restrictions played a major role in the critical receptions of Windows 8 and the Windows Store's momentum.

Here are some issues with not limiting the scope of this article to just Windows 8 store apps:

  • At the current state, the majority of the attributes described in this article about Windows Store apps DO NOT APPLY to Windows 10, including:
  • This article states that these apps can only be installed from Windows Store, or side loaded through enterprise domains or through a Windows developer license. This is NOT TRUE in Windows 10. Windows 10 allows side loading of ANY Store apps with just a switch in the Settings app, just like Android. No developer license or online authentication is required. Any user can do it.
  • Multitasking: Other than a single sentence describing the difference in Windows 10, this article talks about multitasking system in Windows 8.
  • The entire section of the "look and feel" of these apps are based on Windows 8's design guidelines, including App bars, Charms, horizontal scrolling, etc. These designs specs no longer apply to store apps designed for Windows 10. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NazmusLabs
First, you can install sideloaded apps in Windows 10 but they won't run until their licensing condition is met. Exactly like Windows 8. You are fooled by a simple UI in Settings app. Be my guest and try it!
Second, all those differences that you said are minutiae. Metro-style apps still have the same development process, installation style, life-cycle management, security model, API and design language that is radically different from Windows desktop apps. Users can't even touch their shortcuts.
Third, and most importantly, even if all you said was true, WP:FACR requires an article to be broad in scope and comprehensive.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response Codename Lisa. But I believe you are incorrect on the licensing part. This is a direct quote from MSDN article:
Quote:
There is a different approach for development for Windows 10 devices. A developer license is no longer required for each device that you want to use to develop, install or test your app. You just enable a device once for these tasks from the settings for the device. That's it. No more renewing your developer licenses every 30 or 90 days!
If you are still using a Windows 8.1 device to develop or test your apps with Microsoft Visual Studio 2013 or Microsoft Visual Studio 2015, you still need to get a developer license or register your Windows Phone.
End Quote. Source: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/get-started/enable-your-device-for-development
I will go ahead and accept your other points. If we do stick to this article as the primary source of universal windows apps, in that case we need some significant updates. This article barely changed since the launch of Windows 10. I'll contribute where I can, God Willing. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NazmusLabs: You are right. Things has changed since the last time I tested it. But the problem was not the developer license. The license to run sideloaded app extents (or did) to apps with certain signing requirements. Unsigned apps don't (or didn't) run. Actually, a TechNet source briefly alludes to it:

Here's what you'll need to have:

  • Devices need to be unlocked for sideloading (unlock policy enabled)
  • Certificate assigned to app
  • Signed app package
Anyway, things might have changed. I keep an open mind. Let's help each other.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and actually loves historic info. — Codename Lisa (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: Hi there. Just new updates to the signing information. Some new developments completely changed the rules. All this were announced at Build 2016. UWP can now be signed by ANY root certificate. It is no longer required to be signed by MS. It can be installed by simply double-clicking an APPX package. UWP apps can be installed from other app distribution platforms. Another big change is that UWP apps are NO LONGER called Windows Store apps. Windows 10 calls it "Windows App". If it is downloaded form the Windows Store, then it is called "Trusted Windows Store App". That is, from now on, Windows Store App is a term for only UWP apps that come from the Windows Store. Best, Nazmus. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NazmusLabs: Hi. That's good news indeed. And the term "Metro-style app" was really no longer a common name, with people and media using a host of ambiguous names that Wikipedia naming policy doesn't approve.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Us readers really need this aspect of the article to be clarified/improved! With regard to Windows 10, am I really not allowed to write my own "app" and install and run it on my own computer, without permission/involvement from MS? This is an extremely important "detail". It seems like a big step towards a future in which ordinary people have no real control of their own computers. (And it would be particularly ironic and malicious to use the name "universal" for such a locked and restricted category of software.)-71.174.176.65 (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

A lot of this article, IMO, reads like a laundry list of things some people don't like about the subject. This seems to violate wp:npov. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Example, please.
Also please clarify "people".
As far as Wikipedia concerns, Wikipedia articles may be entirely composed of things that "people" don't like as far as they come out of a source.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Codename_Lisa: Hi! Parts of the "Distribution and Licensing" section seem to be POV editorialising (e.g. "Traditionally, Windows was an open operating system." ... "Microsoft always knows which apps any given user runs.") These are probably true statements, but the tone of the section and the way it is presented reads like an argument for why Windows Platform apps are making Windows worse. An additional problem is that all but the penultimate paragraph in that section are unsourced. In the "Lifecycle" section: "A Windows app manager automatically stops and terminates hung, inactive and closed apps independent of user's wish." Probably also true, but the jab at the end about it going against the user's wish is opinion, rather than objective factual information. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "people", I mean the authors of the Wikipedia article. If the article said things like, for example, "According to Author McAuthorness's editorial in The New York Times, a Windows app manager automatically terminates these apps independent of the user's wish.", then it would be presenting it as McAuthorness's subjective viewpoint, rather than as objective fact. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"These are probably true statements, but the tone of the section and the way it is presented reads like an argument for why Windows Platform apps are making Windows worse." That's a byproduct of the assumption in your mind. The article says "Outside the 120 countries in which Windows Store works, users can neither develop nor possess such apps" without saying it is bad or good. But you use the word "bad". It is because of your preconceived idea that such a thing is bad. It seems the bias that you see is your own. Another viewer can think "Okay, that means no more piracy" and consider it a pro bias. But the article does not say anything of itself.
"...the jab at the end about it going against the user's wish..." Actually, there is no jab. When I was writing this, I had a positive view on this matter. I wanted to write "automatically, relieving the user of the burden of doing so." I distributed it to a group of 25 university student who eventually voted that "independent of user's wish" has neither positive nor negative sentiments; that "independent" is so neutral that neither means "in violation of" nor "as a relief to".
"An additional problem is that all but the penultimate paragraph in that section are unsourced." Yes, lack of the source is a problem. I did not want the article to exit the draft state because of this and didn't have enough manpower to fix it. But I yielded to the users' feedback. I honestly think it is possible to add citations for them.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Codename Lisa: Thanks for replying to my concerns! I still feel like these issues are valid, even after reading your replies, though — I'll request some feedback from uninvolved editors at WP:NPOV/N, which will hopefully shed some light on the subject; hopefully you don't mind :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Let's make it happen. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldenshimmer and Codename Lisa: I just came across a link to this discussion on WP:NPOVN and realized no one else had responded, so figured I'd give my 2 cents FWIW. Goldenshimmer, I didn't interpret the sections you pointed out as having a negative tone. To me, they seemed to be in a "dispassionate" tone, but I do think the wording is a little awkward, so maybe that makes it easy for us to interpret it differently. IMO the bigger issue is the sparse sourcing. There are also some grammar issues that I'll try to fix up now. I do think it could use some tweaks and more sources. Goldenshimmer, do you have suggestions for better wording? —PermStrump(talk) 01:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Permstrump and Codename Lisa:. :) Sorry I took so long to get back to you about this. Thank you for considering my thoughts about the article! Here are my suggested changes:

  • Nomenclature section: Just needs a source.
  • Look and feel: The "no-chrome rule" is not described as a rule when it is introduced ("They have no UI chrome" vs. e.g. "They may not have UI chrome"); this is a bit confusing.
  • Distribution and licensing: Needs sources for the 1st and 3d paragraphs. I would suggest the first paragraph be stated something like:

Traditional Windows apps can come from a variety of sources, such as optical discs manufactured by their publishers and packages downloaded from third-party Internet sources, and the app publishers are generally the only parties in charge of app updates, maintenance, and licensing terms. This is in contrast with Windows Platform apps, which are generally only available via the Windows Store (the Windows Store is only available in 120 countries, and requires an Internet connection and a Microsoft account). Windows Store apps are published by Microsoft, and installation and maintenance are managed by the Windows Store Service. Windows Store apps are distributed under licensing terms specified by Microsoft, notably that purchased apps must be permitted to be used on multiple devices.

  • Multitasking: The 2nd paragraph needs sources. I would suggest the 2nd paragraph be stated something like:

When a traditional Windows app is started while it is already running, generally another copy of it is started. By contrast, starting a Windows Platform app while it is already running switches to the running instance.

  • In Windows 10 > Look and feel: Needs sources.
  • Lifecycle: I suggest it read something like:

Traditional Windows apps generally begin and end running when started or closed by the user, while Windows Platform apps generally have constantly-running background components, and are suspended when closed by the user; a Windows app manager stops suspended Windows Platform apps automatically as needed.

Windows Runtime: I suggest replacing

Metro-style apps can only be developed using Microsoft's own development tools. Despite claims of interoperability between multiple languages, a practical attempt to implement independent binding to Windows Runtime is doomed to fail.

as follows:

Metro-style apps can generally only be developed using Microsoft's own development tools.

Do these seem reasonable to you? Thanks again! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 19:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Let's address these in the same order that you added them:
  • Nomenclature section: I added a citation to the effect the quoted phrases come directly from Windows 10. That's how we treat such trivia things, e.g. the source for the name of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The source for the name of Windows 10 is Windows 10.
  • Look and feel: I think we should remove the "relaxed the no-chrome rule" part and Microsoft put the title bar feature back. It needs source, so here is one:

    Leonhart, Woody (8 April 2014). "What's new in Windows 8.1 Update". InfoWorld. IDG.

  • Distribution and licensing: I'll look for a source. But unfortunately, I have to reject your suggestion for the following reason:
    • The first sentence of your paragraph does not summarize it. Existing article has this: "Traditionally, Windows was an open operating system."
    • You used weasel words "generally" and "notably".
    • You have written "Universal Windows platform" while the paragraph is talking about Windows 8 when UWP still didn't exist.
    • You should not mistake neutral point of view with neutralized point of view (or neutered point of view). A neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. A neutered point of view is one that adjusts the writing so it reads neither good nor bad but gray.
    • Wikipedia is not censored. You have misfiled the fact that Microsoft reserves itself the right to uninstall software from the user's computer. Please note that the article neither says this is good nor says it is bad. Just that Microsoft can.
  • Multitasking: I will look for more sources as my time permits. But unfortunately, your suggestion has the following problems:
    • You have once again used a weasel word, "generally".
    • You have talked about UWP while that portion of the article is talking about Windows 8, where UWP didn't exist. (Only Metro-style apps.)
  • In Windows 10 > Look and feel: Sure.
  • Lifecycle: Your love for weasel words is astounding; I hope you never marry them! Joke aside, you are here to improve neutrality while weasel words do the exact opposite. And while we are at it, you certainly love removing info. In this case, you have removed the explanation as to why Metro-style apps can only be developed with Microsoft's own tools. Also, re-read my explanation about neutral vs. neutered point of view.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful criticism and improvements to the article! I've gone through and revised my suggestion based on your input. How's it look?
  • Distribution and licensing: Needs sources for remaining unsourced statements. I suggest the first paragraph be stated something like:

The distribution of Metro apps is different from the distribution of traditional Windows apps. Traditional Windows apps can come from a variety of sources, such as optical discs manufactured by their publishers and packages downloaded from third-party Internet sources. Metro apps are published by Microsoft, and installation and maintenance are managed by the Windows Store Service. Windows Store apps are distributed under licensing terms specified by Microsoft, including that purchased apps must be permitted to be used on multiple devices.

I suggest replacing the sentence "Metro-style apps may disappear from the user's computer if Microsoft so wishes." with "Microsoft can remove Metro apps from users' computers."

  • Multiple copies: The 2nd paragraph needs sources. I suggest the 2nd paragraph be stated something like:

Starting a Metro app while it is already running switches to the running instance.

  • In Windows 10 > Look and feel: Still needs sources.
  • Lifecycle: I suggest it read something like:

Windows Platform are suspended when closed by the user and closed as needed by a Windows app manager.

  • Windows Runtime: The paragraph

Metro-style apps can only be developed using Microsoft's own development tools. Despite claims of interoperability between multiple languages, a practical attempt to implement independent binding to Windows Runtime is doomed to fail.

should be rewritten to remove editorialising.
Do these seem reasonable to you? Thanks again! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 19:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and cleaned up the article a bit to remove the unsourced statements that strike me as particularly problematic. :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You did well mostly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 16:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Codename Lisa, I still prefer my wording for the "Lifecycle" section — I think it's clearer, more concise, and less prone to misinterpretation… what do you not like about it? Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 16:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]
Alright. You have clearly worked hard and deserve a compromise. How about this: Don't say "terminate". "To terminate a process" means "to end a process by force or abnormally". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Codename Lisa: Ok, thanks! I only used that word since it's in your preferred version too, so I'll not use it. Thank you again! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 11:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are talking about "A Windows app manager automatically terminates hung, inactive and closed apps." Yes, I used "terminates" in this sentence deliberately to mean "to end by force". Windows app manager ends hung and inactive apps without their consent. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I gotcha! I've changed it to: "Metro-style apps are suspended when they are closed; suspended apps are terminated automatically as needed by a Windows app manager." Is that cool? Thanks again! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 02:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're cool. —Codename Lisa (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of factual inaccuracy

[edit]

Hi.

Permstrump, are you reading this? This is about your contribution which has introduced factual inaccuracy into the article. Basically, you changed this:

Starting with Windows 10, Windows itself consistently uses the phrase "desktop app" to refer to all traditional computer programs. In contrast, "Windows app", refers to a UWP app. A "Trusted Windows Store app" is a UWP installed from Windows Store that meets Microsoft's stringent requirements.

Into this:

Starting with Windows 10, "Windows desktop application" refers to computer programs that only run on Windows PCs and "Windows app" refers to Universal Windows Platform (UWP) apps that can be used on any Windows device.[1] A "Trusted Windows Store app" is a UWP installed from the Windows Store that meets Microsoft's requirements.[citation needed]

Problem: You are no longer quoting what Windows 10 says (hence "starting with Windows 10" is wrong), but quoting what William Harrel says about Windows 8.1, not Windows 10.

The original contribution is something that Windows 10 says, and hence the source is Windows 10 itself. I have added Windows 10 as source anyway.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Harrel, William (April 10, 2015), "Metro, Modern, Now Universal? Microsoft Can't Make Up Its Mind!", Digital Trends, retrieved June 27, 2016
Codename Lisa: I was paraphrasing the source I cited that you keep deleting when you revert. It's from April 2015 and says: "The latest term endorsed by Microsoft is 'Windows apps.' In addition, programs that run only on Windows PCs will be called 'Windows desktop applications'". It also says that Windows as changed what it calls things a number of times, so while what you said may have been true at one point, we have to go with what the source says. You're version may or may not be true now, I have no idea because you're not providing a source. —PermStrump(talk) 14:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was paraphrasing the source I cited... No, you weren't. Let's call that terrible mistake #1. I already said why.
...because you're not providing a source. Windows 10 itself!
–Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing isn't a terrible mistake. It's exactly what we're supposed to do. I don't know if you're right that that is what Windows 10 says because you haven't provided a source. —PermStrump(talk) 15:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Permstrump: Look my friend, I understand that the most difficult thing in Wikipedia is telling someone that he or she is wrong. Because that's when the ability to assume good faith is stress-tested. But trust me: You did intend to paraphrase but ended up creating an amalgamation of something that is neither here nor there. Now, please, look at what you wrote again.
Another matter: Books, films, articles, and software are often used as sources for themselves in Wikipedia, for trivial stuff like their names, names of chapters, etc. (Additionally, the plot of books, films and video games can come from the work itself.) And articles on Windows components use the Windows itself as the source for the title. That's what this article does: Writes three names that are seen in Windows 10. The source is therefore Windows 10. I know, that it is definitely a primary source but the triviality of quotation makes the source suitable.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Universal Windows Platform apps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

[edit]

I removed this section because of the incorrect information. Not all Windows apps are UWP apps, not all UWP apps exist on both mobile and desktop, not just UWP apps that meet specifications and are installed from the store are called Trusted Windows store apps, because Windows Runtime (8.X) apps like the wikipedia app are also called Trusted store apps. Frankly, computer programs and utilities are all called desktop apps. WikIan -(talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WikIan: And as always, you are running away with yourself!
"Not all Windows apps are UWP apps". True, but irrelevant. What you deleted was the inverse of this sentence. It said 'a UWP app is called a "Windows app"'. And it is true.
"not just UWP apps that meet specifications and are installed from the store are called Trusted Windows store apps". Same mistake as above. You deleted the inverse of this sentence, which was true.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 21:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you an example: "A woman is a human" is correct. But "A human is a woman" is not. You cannot delete the sentence "A woman is a human" as wrong and argue that a human can be a man too. This argument is only valid for deleting the second sentence, not the first. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 21:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have said this before, but I say it again: Just because I think you are wrong doesn't mean that I think you are acting in bad faith. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 21:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FleetCommand: @Codename Lisa:This may be the case, but this article is one of the most confusing articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. Here's why:
  1. While the title and intro talk about UWP apps, and one of the sections talk about Windows 8.x, thus implying the UWP apps existed on Windows 8.x, the nomenclature section fails to even talk about non-UWP apps at all.
  2. It also fails to mention that the definition of Windows store apps include Centennial "Desktop Bridge" converted apps, UWP apps, Windows 8.x runtime apps, converted web apps, etc. etc.
  3. This article mentions Universal apps but doesn't realize that universal apps != UWP apps. See this article
  4. It also seems to lead that UWP apps are the "new name" for metro-style apps.
  5. It fails to mention that these apps were also called Modern apps at one point
  6. It fails to mention that UWP apps while theoretically targeting mobile AND desktop (etc...) aren't inherently and directly available on more than one type of device, they must be specifically allowed by the developer for both mobile and PC and contain UI/UX optimizations
  7. This article should just be named "Windows apps"
WikIan -(talk) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Dude, I said stop running away with yourself, and you just accelerate!
  1. Yes. It is deliberate. A solid nomenclature didn't exist before Windows 10 and wandering into that area is a can of worms that if you open, violates WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV all across the board.
  2. Deliberate! This is out of scope. You may not have noticed but the subject of this article is "Universal Windows Platform apps".
  3. Same mistake for the third time: A UWP app is a universal app.
  4. Same mistake for the fourth time: Take any UWP app you like. Take it back in time to 2012. People will call it Metro-style app.
  5. Deliberate! It is not clear beyond doubt that Microsoft intended to use "modern" as a title or simply as an adjective, for advertisement and appeal. Microsoft itself implies that the latter is true but of course, mainstream media has downplayed this aspect.
  6. Same mistake for the fifth time: The article does not claim the contrary. But of course, this could be I bea good addition.
  7. And this last one is the evidence that you are running away with yourself: First you assume this article is about all "Windows app" and then criticize its failure to meet this standard that is only in your head.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 22:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In it's current state is already failing WP:V by stating Windows 8.X is part of UWP. Since there isn't a "Windows apps" article, we violate WP:NPOV by showing just UWP as the sole app-platform for Windows. Much of what I said is verifiable here which is obviously a WP:RS.
  2. Isn't information on how apps are brought to the UWP important? Again we violate WP:NPOV by only stating that apps can only be brought to UWP from 8.x to UWP w/o listing other methods.
  3. "UWP app is a universal app" Huh? Universal apps are clearly defined here: this article was published in 2015 and this one in 2014 and neither are UWP related. A universal app not inherently UWP, and even though a UWP may work "universally" across devices, it isn't the same as being a "universal app". Confusing, I know.
  4. There aren't any reliable sources that states UWP apps is a new name for metro-style apps (because it isn't!!!). You can still run metro-style apps (aka Windows Runtime 8.X apps, universal or not) apps in Windows 10 w/o porting to UWP.
  5. But it was a name and thus if we take a neutral point of view then we should include it no matter how "advertising" Microsoft makes it or how the media tries to avoid that.
  6. I think it would be :).
  7. Notice that Windows_apps links here.
WikIan -(talk) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As CL said above, "Metro-style apps are not all universal apps" WikIan -(talk) 00:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikIan. I am here to inform you that I saw your ping notification. I'd like to let you know that I am staying away from this discussion per WP:CANVASS. Feel free to invoke a WP:3O. All I can say is that both of you must give the words of each other due considerations. —My best, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa, I pinged you on this discussion, because you've made the most edits to this article, and thought you should have a say in addressing the above items. Thanks, WikIan -(talk) 12:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WikIan: Thanks for your consideration and your intelligent answer. I appreciate it.
But despite my oath to patch things up with you, I simply mustn't be part of the consensus-building process; not now and not here.
There is another issue too: For a long time, I was afraid of bringing this article out of my userpage. The reason was that I felt this topic is highly controversial and writing an article on it was like opening a can of worms. The most important issue was the title of the article. I simply could not come up with a satisfactory title. "Metro-style app" didn't seem right to me because any app, both traditional and new generation could theoretically adhere to the Metro design language. "Windows Runtime app" sounded wrong because Microsoft had allowed web browsers from Google and Firefox to have a presence in Windows Store and have access to the full repertoire of Windows APIs. They weren't Windows Runtime-only. "Windows Store apps" seemed wrong, because technically, you could sideload apps. But people were angry over something new that had come with Windows 8. The trouble was, they were also looking for a name that Microsoft had denied them.
Fortunately, my background in linguistics eventually rescued me. Language does not concerns itself with abject technical accuracy and emphasizes that what's correct is what's used widely. In linguistics, there is always exception. For example, a human can be defined as a two-legged creature and will NOT be stripped of the humanity status even when he loses a leg. So, all those apps that were available from Windows Store? They were Metro-style apps even if they neither cared for the Metro design language nor for Windows Runtime. All those non-existent apps that could theoretically adhere to Metro design language? They were not Metro-style app; even if one day, they came into existence in overwhelming force, the Metro-style app's definition won't change. (The seeming incongruity between the title and the definition is only something for etymology.) Apps packaged in APPX container were Windows Store apps even those that were sideloaded. So Metro-style apps and Windows Store apps were one and the same.
I see that Windows 10 has changed the playground a bit: "App" = "packaged in APPX". "Trusted Store App" = "An App that, even when side-loaded, exists on Windows Store". "Desktop app" = "A shortcut to some EXE file".
Now, you and FC must decide whether this article must be about everything packaged in APPX (App) or those UWP apps that made people so angry. Just mind the inbound links.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Windows_Platform_apps&oldid=1210802867"