Mobile delivery of university content:
native apps vs web apps
Native app
A native app was traditionally built for a particular
platform (iOS, Android), and has the ability to use
device-specific hardware and software, meaning the
apps can take advantage of the latest technology
available on mobile devices such as a global
positioning system (GPS) and camera. Each
platform can require its own development process.
Web app
Web apps are developed using html and css and are
accessed through the mobile device’s web browser;
they don’t need to be downloaded and installed on
the device so tend to be slower, and the user
experience may vary depending on the devices'
browser features and quirks. This report assumes
content is optimised for a range of screen sizes.
Introduction
This short report and associated website discusses whether student-oriented University content
viewed on smartphones and mobile devices should be delivered via a native app (and in which case
with which developer), or via a web app. Although the original scope was to look just at native apps,
the nature of the beast and its proximity to the Web Presence project has elicited a more detailed
investigation into mobile delivery in general.
"Very old and clunky design; not very professional. Many bugs and errors and lazy
design, ie offering features which link to other sites or PDFs not optimised for mobile
view"
Although this is not taken from SHUgo feedback, this comment sums up the reaction from many
students about this - indeed any - university's approach to mobile technology. Students are quite black
and white about the way content should be delivered, and can be quite damning if it is not up to
scratch, often deleting an app and not downloading it again.
Although iTunes reviews and feedback from surveys are unlikely to be representative of the University
population as a whole, we have nevertheless been able to form an overview of opinion.
Expectations
"Anyone can make an app that literally just has links that go to the websites on a web
browser"
Student expectations vary enormously. Some are very pleased with seemingly basic and often flawed
apps whereas others will pick holes in an apparently reasonable one. One clear response is that, if
you say you are delivering a native app, students dismiss any content that lives outside the app.
Linking to a website, responsive or not, is not enough.
Style over content
It seems that seamless, in-app delivery can be more important to students than the actual content,
which, given the almost insurmountable difficulties involved in extracting and presenting data from
multiple University systems, none of which are likely to be replaced in the immediate future, is
probably not great news for university developers.
Likes / dislikes
After looking at 30 University apps of wide-ranging quality and purpose, student opinion can be boiled
down to the following essentials. In order of priority:
What's good
In-app content
Remembers login details
Alerts (email, Blackboard)
And not so good
Links to websites / PDFs / unoptimized content
Freezing / crashing
Modules with no content, or content that hasn't
been updated.
iPad version
iOS 7+ compatible
Rotates with screen
Intro sequence
Roles - If you use roles, you need to make
them substantially different and worth the effort
This looks like a very simple list of demands, but shoe-horning data into an app when it doesn't want
to go isn't straightforward, and relying on busy staff to update content can be difficult. It's also
interesting that what provokes criticism is often the technology rather than the content.
Recommendations
The SHUgo survey suggests a true native app is students' preferred method of delivery, but it's worth
considering the alternatives. If we stay with a native app there are three options:



stay with Blackboard Mobile and continue to deliver a substandard 'pseudo' app.
try to develop a better native app with (for example) oMbiel, with versions for every type of
device - a minimum of two (iPhone, Android) to five (iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows, plus
generic mobile web for non-smartphones).
look at a framework like Phonegap, "an open source solution for building cross-platform
mobile apps with standards-based Web technologies like HTML, JavaScript, CSS."
If we go for a web app - a website that works regardless of platform, a 'one size fits all', we would save
on time with the added bonus of no longer having to contend with Apple Developer, which seems
unnecessarily complex and problematic.
Whichever we choose, the Web Presence project must include mobile delivery across multiple
platforms as an integral part of its scope and use it to inform the decision of which product to buy.
Conclusion
The survey suggests that although students want what (primarily due to the limitations of Mosaic and
Blackboard Mobile) we can't currently deliver, their responses do provide useful material to inform the
'dream' app of the future…if indeed we have one.
Alex Deck
W&LE, Corporate Systems, Dec 2014
References




https://www2.shu.ac.uk/MobileReport/Index.htm
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/web-apps-versus-native-apps-for-iphones-and-ipads.html
http://mobiledevices.about.com/od/additionalresources/a/Native-Apps-Vs-Web-Apps-Which-Is-TheBetter-Choice.htm
http://sixrevisions.com/mobile/native-app-vs-mobile-web-app-comparison/