Ping ...

I believe this is still the recommended practice for filing a component request?  Anthony, can you follow up?

Will these just be referred to as ProgressiveWebApps externally?

This is a bit distinct from general PWAs in a couple of ways (at least):
1. Non-PWAs can be installed manually
2. PWAs don't need to be installed.

Is there a way that this can be described w/ out a negative (i.e. with current phrasing this will appear if someone types webapk)?

Ah ... ok. It probably does make sense for this to come up when users type WebAPKs. For example I just looked at an issue that had been put in WebAPKs incorrectly. How is this:

Issues related to the Chrome side handling of installation of web apps and the UI of running installed web apps. Installed web apps include WebAPKs on Android and web apps added to the desktop / shelf etc. on desktop platforms. For server side issues related to WebAPKs (e.g. minting issues) or issues with the code inside the WebAPK bundle use Mobile>WebAPKs.

+piotrs who is interested in this.

laforge - any progress?

+Owen.  The description is a little long and seems a bit ambiguous (i.e. installing web apps doesn't clearly distinguish from APK minting, add to shelf, app shortcuts, PWAs, etc...).

Perhaps there is a way to shift things around around a little to express these potentially related/ distinct concepts in a slightly different hierarchy.

A short version would be "Issues related to the Chrome handling of the installation of web apps and the UI or running installed web apps."

The distinguishing factor is that it is related to the code in Chrome, not code in minting servers or the APK itself. Anyway, hopefully someone else can come up with a short-enough precise-enough description.

BTW where are these descriptions visible? AFAIK I've never seen a component description.

The descriptions appear next the component, in the auto-complete drop down.

Let's put a pin on this for a moment.  I'd like to get some additional perspective from Owen about the right naming/ structure.

As an aside, we omit the phrase "Issues related to...," since components explicitly only contain issues.

Shorter version proposal while we wait for Owen:

"Install flow and UX in installed web apps"

Ah right, I see - that helps a lot! The components I typically use don't have any description :/

I can see now that these are useful and typically only a few words long. Sure, let's wait for Owen.

Is there pressure to keep the number of components low? Maybe we could split this into a few components:
> Installability - Installability checking of PWAs
> InstallationFlow - Web app installation UI and flow

Note the last once includes non-PWAs - any web site can be installed manually, but PWAs get special promotion.

And another one, maybe:
> UX - UX of installed web apps.

not sure if that name is OK.

It would help a lot if these components got descriptions:
Mobile>WebAPKs
Content>WebApps

Also Browser>AppShortcuts probably should be deprecated, if that can be done. It was used for the very old 'create application shortcuts' feature which has been replaced with all this new stuff.

pinging Owen! Please add your 2c.

Adding my 2¢ - I see a few different kinds of issues:

1. Issues pertaining to Chrome's install UI features and triggering. This applies to PWA and non-PWA, desktop and mobile.
2. Issues pertaining to the UX of running an "installed web app". Again applies to PWA and non-PWA, desktop and mobile
3. Issues pertaining to the backend generating WebAPKs

And for completness, note the former two sets of issues are both owned by the Sydney team while the latter are owned by the WebAPK team.

I don't have a view about whether we should split 1 and 2 into separate components, would like to know what laforge thinks about that.

As a strawman I'd suggest WebAppInstalls as a new component for 1 and 2. Note I find "installability" implies pre-installed and "InstalledWebApp" implies post-installed only, hence avoiding either "Installability" or "installed". A description for this could be as Piotr suggests: "Web app install flow and UX of installed web apps"

We could consider trying to split this by desktop and mobile into separate components, but I can't find any particularly clean way to do that since some things are shared. Since it's the same team handling both I'd suggest for now we don't worry about that and instead use the OS fields to manage that divide.

Hi Laforge, what should be the next step to move this forward? Thanks!

Hi again, summing up all of above and after checking with the team I proposal following:

We deprecate/remove:
UI>Browser>AppShortcuts - old replaced feature.
Content>WebApps - shouldn't be used (consulted with Dom), we will move out of it.

We introduce:
UI>Browser>WebAppInstalls - "Install flow and UX in installed web apps, including WebApks"

We add descriptions:
Mobile>WebAPKs - "WebAPK minting and WebAPK specific handling in Chrome"

Let me know whether above is feasible.

All of those are now done (deprecated, created, and updated as appropriate).  Thank you for summarizing and syncing on the items that can be removed.

Thank you Anthony!