Is it because the workflow is for a student to log in to the app weeks ahead of time using a QR code a teacher supplies. And Safari on iPhones won't persist website data for more than a week, therefore preventing use cases like this from working as a web site?
Why is this an app? Why isn't it a webpage?
Why would you want it to take up space in your phone's app launcher. What can't be done through a web browser?
The BBC recently wrote this article about the UK government running a trial for GCSE students to receive their results using an app, rather than being given results in an envelope.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2e2z1y1pko
As is common for modern news outlets, they didn't link to their sources:
https://tst.issue-education-record.education.gov.uk/about/pupils-parents
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.gov.education.educationrecord
I am increasingly of the opinion that when writing CI scripts for platforms such as GitHub actions you shouldn't use that platform's features but just wrap a single largish bash script.
It is trivially runnable on your laptop, which is great for testing and debugging changes locally.
And you don't need to learn syntax and conventions that are only used by a single system.
I'd be interested to know why this approach is so unusual. Is it because actions from the marketplace don't mix well with this?
The web on mobile
🔖 https://adactio.com/journal/21728
🔗 https://ellyloel.com/bookmarks/the-web-on-mobile/
The app screenshots match the 2nd URL
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.nationalrail.google
It's a strange state of affairs that both these URLs exist
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/live-trains/
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/app/start/?platform=pwa
The functionality is the same between them, except the first has a hamburger menu and the second has a bottom navigation bar. And if you do anything on the latter and refresh you'll end up with the first's URLs and navigation.
I wrote a letter to my MP:
Dear Mr Docherty,
The case of the 2 children killed at a Wimbledon school by a driver driving off the road and through the fence has made the news again today as the driver has been found not guilty because of an unknown seizure disorder.
Quoting Det Ch Supt Clair Kelland: "Having carried out a detailed examination of her medical records, we know that she couldn’t have predicted or prevented the incident."
It may well be the case that the driver was not responsible, but I don't see similar situations as unpreventable or inevitable.
The car in the collision was a Land Rover Defender. It has two characteristics which I believe contributed to the 2 deaths and many others.
1. The bonnet is unusually tall. Bonnets of this shape have been shown through analysis of collisions to be more dangerous to pedestrians. Quoting an article about a US study (where access to car models in collision databases is easier to come by):
"Whatever their nose shape, pickups, SUVs and vans with a hood height greater than 40 inches are about 45 percent more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than cars and other vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less and a sloping profile, an IIHS study of nearly 18,000 pedestrian crashes found."
The Defender's bonnet height is 43 inches. Excessively tall bonnets will have an even worse affect on child pedestrians due to children being shorter than the average adult. Excessively tall bonnets are also more likely to push the pedestrian down rather than up in a collision. Being pushed down is a more dangerous scenario.
2. The car accelerates faster and with more horsepower than a contemporary UK car. It is well known that a pedestrian's chance of survival worsens dramatically the faster the car colliding into them is travelling. The faster a car accelerates, the faster it can reach fatal speeds.
The more horsepower and weight it has, the less affected it is by obstacles like fences, garden furniture and sickeningly in situations like this, other pedestrians.
I'm unclear on which configuration of Land Rover Defender was involved in this incident, so I can't quote its numbers. I see from Google that the Land Rover Defender 130 (2022 onwards) model has a 0-60mph time of 5.5-7.7 seconds, and a power of 295 to 493 bhp. In contrast a 2023 Ford Fiesta can have an acceleration as long as 14.5 seconds, and a horsepower as low as 69 bhp.
I don't believe either of these characteristics of car design can be justified for cars intended to be driven by members of the public on public roads.
As a member of parliament will you work to restrict the fatal excess that is endemic in modern luxury cars on the UK market? Perhaps by restricting the bonnet height, engine power and acceleration in cars available for sale?
I hope to hear your response before the general election.
Kind regards,
Chris Couzens
---
Elly Loel
