Useful article.

I agree that testing UI on the physical device is essential, and obviously faster, than the emulators (though they can be skinned). Once we have better automated testing tools, functional testing will be much easier.

Fighting the native widgets isn't a good idea. Users of the platform are used to them, so change with care, even if _you_ don't like them. You're also creating a maintenance overhead.

But there's lots of notes in there that are definitely of use. Thanks.

Pointing out a real annoyance in the Android GUI. Checked boxes have a "√" checkmark in them, but is grayed out. This is bad UI design.

I didn't vote you down, but personally, I think it's worse design to invent your own style over using the platform's widgets.

Whether you like them or not, UI is about familiarity.

Yes, I wouldn't made a custom UI only for Android just because the checkboxes have a bad design. I was just pointing out a pet peeve with the UI.

It looks like the action is checked, but you can't uncheck it because it has disabled colors.

Someone seemed to have a different view, what is it?

How would jQuery Mobile (JQM) fit into this picture? It's due to be released shortly and seems to address cross-platform issues. I think JQM is going to be a great impetus for the next generation of mobile webapp development. I'm looking forward to testing out the new mobile ThemeRoller tool.

It's weird how most people seem to be mistaking CSS3 and mobile browser extensions as part of the HTML5 proposal.

It's in the popular culture now as the successor to "AJAX"... which started out referring to dynamically loaded content using XMLHTTPRequest, but very quickly became a label for cool stuff with JavaScript.

I used to grumble about that, but now I just let it all slide.

Yeah. Everything is "HTML5" – which seems to be the successor of Web 2.0