Some people have asked similar questions about protecting HTML5 apps and protecting freemium apps, but not both together. I'm asking this separately because I have the impression (whether right or wrong) that HTML5 is particularly insecure vs native.
I'm working on an embedded HTML5 app I want to monetize using the freemium model, but I'm worried about how to keep its virtual currency and scoring variables from being too easily messed with by the end user, as I fear this could negatively impact revenue if some hacker (no offense intended by the term) were to create a YouTube video or blog posting about an exploit. I think it is pretty unlikely early on for this to happen, but I think vulnerability will matter more with popularity. I'm also worried about with which someone can copy an app.
I though realize both are possible inherently with an app installed on the device.
My questions are:
How easy is it, in your opinion or experience, to mess with an
unobfuscated embedded (not browser dependent) HTML5 app and its Javascript vs a native app with core files based on Java or Objective-C data?/How well does obfuscation work on HTML5 apps vs native obfuscated
apps in terms of data protection?
How difficult is it to obfuscate an HTML5 app vs using something like Proguard on regular Android apps?
Does obfuscation cause HTML5 to noticeably slow down for normal users?
Lastly, do you think it's practical to have an HTML5 app with
freemium features? Or do you personally think it is too vulnerable?
What I'm basically trying to figure out with them is whether HTML5 is particularly vulnerable or hard to protect, at least when compared to protecting native apps. If an obfuscated HTML5 app is as secure or insecure as a regular app, then I guess I'm okay with it.
The only way to prevent cheating (and unlocking freemium items is a kind of cheating) is to move all the relevant game logic to the server. Forget about obfuscation. When it's executed on the clients machine, it's under the control of the user. Obfuscation can slow the user down, but it can't stop someone who is determined to hack it. This doesn't just apply to javascript, it applies to every game client, no matter what programming language it is written in.
A general rule of designing cheat-proof multiplayer games is to never trust the client and do all calculations which are relevant for gameplay on the server.
In my opinion it is better to obfuscate AND never trust the client.
Not only that, I would even compress the obfuscated code and I would add an obfuscated decompressor in the client and/or the server.
The technique is viable and it is what professional companies are using all over the web.
Now, to answer your questions:
It's not easy to mess with a correctly obfuscated code (something
which will require you to compress/crypt even numbers).Professional
hackers won't mess with your code "for sport" unless they're given
money to do so and even in that case, they'll have a hard time doing
it (that's why I don't believe in the "forget about obfuscation" way
of thinking).
Obfuscation works really well in terms of data protection.Your code
becomes unreadable and, to some extent, it can be seen as a
compression algorithm thus it reduces file size and loading times.
Obfuscation is easy if you rely on professional tools which can
obfuscate, for example, JS, html5, css and php all together. It's
harder only if you have to develop such tools.But there exists
open-source software too in the field.
It slows down "normal users" definitely, they feel lost in front of
you code.
It's practical to have an HTML5 app with freemium features but it
all depends on your implementation of such options.
If done correctly as stated above, it's less vulnerable but,
personally, I don't like this business model.
Related
I am trying to create a website where users can view and interact with room-furnishings in a 3D environment in a browser. Now, I do not wish to create anything from scratch, if it is possible to build upon existing open source efforts. So far, my research shows that:
The most established open source project I could build upon, that allows me to show 3D scenes on the browser and have users interact with them, uses Java3D for browser view, encapsulated in a java applet (sweethome3Dviewer).
Java 3D itself seems to be out of vogue, with most people recommending HTML5+WebGL (where unfortunately, I can't find any solutions that are as developed).
So here are my questions for this forum:
1) Are there any serious drawbacks of using a Java3D based approach?
I am talking of ANY drawbacks here, for example: "it is too slow"; "it is not stable"; "is limited by the number of concurrent users", etc.
2) What would you suggest I start with and build upon, if not the one based on Java3D?
Please note my preference for not re-inventing the wheel!
Yes, there is a serious drawback to using Java applets today: they are likely to simply not work at all.
The biggest problem is that the Java security system, which is intended to prevent programs like applets from accessing other parts of your computer (modifying files, running additional unsandboxed programs, etc.), has a history of security holes. Because of this history, there is a general consensus that permitting Java applets is simply not an acceptable security policy for the current day. Therefore, many browsers omit the Java plug-in or disable it by default.
And there are also browsers which simply have never had a Java browser plug-in at all, such as those on Android and iOS devices. Besides the security risk, there is also the issue that Java is “heavyweight” as web content goes — it can be seen as a waste of limited resources, for portable devices.
Thus, using Java applets is not a good choice: your applet will never work for many users, and those it does work for are taking an unnecessary security risk.
WebGL, on the other hand, is “just” another JavaScript-based API, which only does graphics, not lots of other things that have to be turned off by a “security manager” element. There are risks inherent to WebGL (GPU drivers are not the most security-minded thing out there) but in the current state of things it's unlikely that WebGL will be simply shut off rather than being fixed, if a problem is found.
My company writes software that installs on client machines to perform point-of-sale transactions. The software interfaces with a variety of external peripherals (receipt printers, bar code scanners, credit-card readers, etc). We do this with a WinForms app that we created in Visual Studio using the Microsoft OPOS library, which in turn communicates with our cloud server.
There are obvious inefficiencies in this model, primarily with updates. I'm researching other ways to communicate with these peripherals over the web, preferably via web browser. So far as I can tell, Java is one of the only technologies out there that can do what we're looking for (via applet), and I assume Adobe Flash can as well (via the Air platform). These are viable, but not preferable because we want to run our software on web-enabled mobile devices.
Does anybody have suggestions for other ways to communicate with external peripherals over the web?
UPDATE (Jan 16th, 2019): The Credential Management API has been announced. It's currently only supported on Chrome and Opera but it's looking promising. Google Developers wrote an article elaborating on the spec.
UPDATE (Dec 28th, 2016): Another couple years gone, and another update. This one will be more focused on two new developments than anything else. See the new "WebUSB & Web BlueTooth" section under "Full Device API". But the answer remains the same.
UPDATE (Nov 3rd, 2014): It's been just over two years since the original post was made, but the answer remains mostly the same for now. We are, however, closer to your original goal in several areas.
ORIGINAL ANSWER:
There would be a number of ways to go about this.
Background
The HTML5 specification has entered into the "Recommendation" state. This means that HTML5 is pretty much set for what it looks like. However, I will be using HTML5 in the same way that every marketing person in the world has decided is best. That is, I will not be talking about HTML. Well, I will, in so far as you will utilize it from an HTML page, but not really. What I'll actually be discussing is JavaScript (JS) and that's a horse of a different color. But for all intents and purposes, we're putting it all under the same heading as HTML5, which has been decided to mean "shiny and new" now.
Also, the items which I am discussing will vary in support. Some are very browser dependent projects (like Chromium specific implementations), and some are more standards driven projects that may not have browsers implementing or experimenting with them yet. I'll try to distinguish between the two as I go along.
Full Device API
Status: Incoming, but not ready
Being able to access devices from the browser is making slow but steady progress. Right now, many modern browsers have access to some of the more common devices like the camera or gamepads, but they are all high level APIs. Browser vendors, the standards groups, and lots of companies involved with the web are all trying to make webapps just as powerful as your local applications.
But the APIs you are looking for are still in progress and a ways off. For your particular case, and for the more general case of connecting your webapp to most devices, we're still a few years away from something we can use. If you want to see what awesome things are coming up in that field, here are just a select few items that may help you directly:
Web Near Field Communication (NFC) API
This one unfortunately may be dead in the water for now. But it looks like originally some folks at the W3C (mostly Intel it looks like) were looking at adding a NFC API to the web.
Media Capture Streams
The WebRTC group is working on programmatic access to media streams like the camera which would allow to integrate things like barcode scanning or other features. This has reached CR status and is available in browsers, but is less helpful on its own.
Web Bluetooth
If you had bluetooth capable tools, this API would help you connect with them from computers and devices that were able to listen and connect. The primary driver for this at the moment seems like it is the Chrome team, including an experimental implementation, but I wouldn't consider it anywhere ready to use yet (See "WebUSB & Web BlueTooth" section).
WebUSB
This would allow full access to low level USB information including listing devices and interacting with them. Same as Web BlueTooth, this seems to be current Chrome pet project, but I also wouldn't rely on it (See "WebUSB & Web BlueTooth" section).
Network Service Discovery
If you have other devices or items on the network which broadcast and use HTTP, this API would allow you to discover and interact with these services. No browser implementation, but it is in a working draft for the W3C.
Originally, Mozilla was pushing a number of these forward because of Boot2Gecko (or Firefox OS). However, with that project officially cancelled, we aren't seeing much progress from them in these areas now.
Members of the Chrome team, however, seem to have decided to dive in and start not only working towards these, but putting them live in browsers. Which leads us to...
WebUSB & Web BlueTooth
Like sausages, it's better to not know how Web Standards are made
-Abraham Lincoln (probably)
There's been a little bit of buzz in this area as it looks like the Chrome team snuck in these as experimental features and developed their own specification for it. Which is great! Just maybe not in the way that you were hoping for.
Each browser vendor and W3C contributor group has their own style and makes contributions towards the specs in their own way. The result is usually a fairly decent specification that the browsers have agreed upon. But getting from nothing to something is... messy. Real messy. And is quite a process a lot of times. It doesn't always result in a good spec (yeah, I'm talking about you Florian compromise...) but even when it does, it takes a while.
However, It seems like Google developed this version of the spec all on their own. And, in my experience, Google's approach to the specs is always a little... well... setting my personal opinions aside we'll say "gung-ho". They tend to just dive right into the deep end. And that seems to be what they've done here.
I highly doubt these specs or implementations will look anything like this when they become standards. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's part of the process. But I wouldn't go relying on this implementation or developing any code or products against it. This is an unprecedented feature on the web and all the browser vendors are gonna want a big say in this.
That said, this is actually good. One of the things Google often does (for better or worse) with situations like this is forces the conversation and it can push things along. And having a feature shipped in the browser, even an experimental feature, can turn up the heat on the demand for it. So we may see more progress in this area soon.
PhoneGap Apache Cordova. You know, for your phone
Status: Not fully featured and phone only
Apache Cordova, previously Adobe PhoneGap, is a way to write your program in HTML, CSS, and JS that allows you to access lower level functionality on things like phones, and compile across devices. This would be a way to implement your program, but it would be a phone application, not necessarily a desktop one. An option to consider, and something I figured I would mention.
Cordova implements a few of the above features already, but doesn't have some of the more powerful ones like NFC or BlueTooth.
The Native-App solution (for Windows 8)
Status: Possible, but OS specific and desktop app
Windows 8 offers the ability to build applications in HTML and JS. This would allow you to easily access lower level functionality on the OS via their API. From the looks of it, it is pretty extensive and you can do a lot. You mentioned cross OS support, however, and this obviously limits you to one OS.
It's so Flash-y!
Status: Dying/Dead, not possible as a web app
Flash won't have direct access to the system through the web. You could create an AIR application, but that will sort of defeat the purpose of having it web based. In addition, Flash support on mobile, and on the web it would seem, is on the decline.
NodeJS
Status: Can be a bit of a pain and only possible as a desktop app
NodeJS and JS applications have sort of been a hot topic the last couple years. I didn't discuss it in my original post because I felt it wasn't quite there yet. However, things have progressed and it is much closer to being ready for this sort of thing, and has the support and power of a growing user base. That said, for your particular case, I wouldn't recommend using it. It would have to be local on the users machine, and because of how NodeJS (and similar engines) are at the moment, it would require a lot of extra configuration and setup that would complicate things a bit.
So you could build an app using HTML, CSS and JS with NodeJS or similar engines and have low level access to what you need, but it has to be local, and it would take more work than I'm sure you want to do every time you'd like to install it for a customer.
... Now where was I?
So where does that leave us? Well, simple: if you want a single language/set of code as your code base, HTML/CSS/JS aren't a great option... yet. But they could be some day. For now, your options are limited to what you feel is best for your customer. Java is a stable option you listed, but obviously comes with its own drawbacks. As the web develops, I think we'll see a lot of really cool things coming out of the new functionality, but we've got a ways to go still.
More reading:
Brian.IO: Beyond HTML5
HTML5 Apps on Windows 8
Wikipedia list of projects built using JS
This is possible, but it would have to be done indirectly. In theory, you could write a socket-server in a low level language, which gets I/O, and sends the I/O through the socket (relaying, I guess). HTML5 uses WebSockets, or some equivalent to communicate with this socket-server.
Now it can be achieved with WebUSB API.
It is available in Chrome since version 54.
It is a W3C editor's draft so we can expect (hope) that it will be adopted by other browser vendors...
I've been thinking about this a lot lately... have a POS app mostly written in VB6, considering what to do next. HTML5 is an option and I was thinking I'd use VSPE to get the serial stuff into the JS.
http://www.eterlogic.com/Products.VSPE.html
Love this product! Works very well for getting serial traffic where you need it, so I think it would work well, at least as a proof-of-concept to get you going. You'll want to use a combination of "connector" types along with the "tcpclient" and "tcpserver".
Just for the record, a method that works well in 2016 (since chrome 26), but is to be withdrawn over the next 2 years is to deploy your html5 as a chrome app and use chrome.usb (or chrome.serial or chrome.bluetooth).
I am currently using chrome.usb and planning to migrate to a web app using WebUSB API (see Supersharp's answer), which I hope will be adopted by the time Google discontinue chrome apps 🤞.
I am building an online game, similar to a flash online game, but using HTML only. (HTML5)
I would like to prevent people from copying it and putting the game on their site.
With flash, I used to do this by adding the URL check to make sure it was running on my site, but this seems useless if i can only put the check in Javascript.
Is there anything that can prevent someone from simply copying the game?
as a followup..
Can I protect the source at all? (aside from obfuscation with javascript.)
Thanks!
Unfortunately if the game engine is 100% JavaScript, the most practical way to do this would be with obfuscating your code. Here's a link to a site that does just that.
However, by using Ajax which allows your client side script to communicate with your server, you can store the majority of your game's logic and functionality on your server in any type of server-side scripting such as PHP.
Basically your PHP (or some other language) files on your site would get requests from the user's machine to make decisions about logic in the game whenever logic is needed for the game to function, and your server would respond, all through using Ajax. Then someone could only really copy half of your game - that part stored in JavaScript.
The one downside with this method is that it may slow down the user's game drastically due to having to communicate with the server constantly.
Hope this helped and made sense!
No way to do this, it's the nature of the web. Your best bet is obfuscating your code.
I'm developing a Web/AJAX application that replicates the majority of features available in a certain niche class of desktop apps (I'm avoiding detail here because I don't think it's relevant enough to plug myself. ;] ) with the exception of voicechat, which I can't implement without using a browser plugin. Voice is by no means ubiquitous in the industry, but the people who use it swear by it and refuse to do without.
A comment I receive fairly often is "This is nice, but when is it getting voicechat?" It's irksome, because if I was using a platform like Java or Flash the entire application would be leaner, quicker, and easier to troubleshoot.
But with HTML5, it seems like receiving the audio would be feasible. Google and I haven't found anything pertaining to recording and transmitting audio, and I'm guessing that part can't be done, but what of the future? If anyone knows about the nooks and crannies of HTML5 or even what's speculated for beyond the upcoming standard, I'd appreciate it.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video-conferencing-and-peer-to-peer-communication
From what I've read, the element described in this spec is what you're thinking of.
Situation
I have been working on a project lately where the UI development seems to be way too time consuming. In this case, the "Business Rules" on the server-side are much more complicated than the presentation aspects as far as a Computer Science or complexity perspective.
I've found myself scratching/banging my head against the wall with problems with behaviour that differs from the intuitive approach all the way to being a black hole of time waste and poor documentation, where I might be trying to get a simple UI element to line up correctly.
I'm not complaining; I understand there are complexities and a wide audience to support with web development, but I am perplexed by how long it takes to do what seems should be the easy part compared to how long it takes to write the code with complex logic, math, science, etc.
Question
What are you thoughts and personal experience to go from concept to reality with web development and to do this rapidly, or at least in a way that you can have a sense of how long it might take? I have purposefully not mentioned any frameworks or languages, because I would really like to here what web development stacks you use, what tools or best practices help you get things done faster, and how you end up with code that doesn't feel totally brittle and full of hacks.
Hyperbole, language preferences, and all thoughts welcome, I would at least like to get a sense of what is being used for web development that has a high success rate, even if it isn't the latest and greatest thing around.
I personally have found breaking everything up into small tasks helps.
The way I like to design web pages:
Draw out the design, or photoshop it.
Create the HTML - no CSS, no styling at all
Now add in your style - basic style, like positioning, save making the menu perfect for later
Connect to database if needed / server side code
Now add in any javascript, ajax needed
Tweak it to perfection
If you have all this broken into small tasks, when you get done with each, you feel more motivated to continue working.
Like I said, this is how I do it, and it seems to go quickly, especially since I only get about 1 to 2 hours a night to work.
The answer to this question depends on if you are working alone or leading a group.
If you are leading a group you will want to break apart responsibilities as the following:
Designers - These people should own the creation of graphical mockups and the creation/maintenance of CSS. They should own CSS as a responsibility so that they know not to create outrageous graphical mockups that cannot be created as a webpage without considerable code bloat.
Markup - These people should own the authoring of HTML, accessibility, semantics, RDFa requirements, and any other aspect associated with front end data structure.
UIT - These people should own JavaScript, efficiency requirements, content-management requirements, internal process and front-end tool/process governance, and generally own best practices for all client visible code.
Applications - These people should own server-side application code development, content management system creation/maintenance, and database access requirements. These people are application and services programmers and provide the interface to database and services personnel.
QA - These people test all business requirements of the final product in a certification environment. If errors are seen the bug/ticket should be updated and reassigned. The work is not finished until QA signs off as valid.
Business Owner - The business owner is the person/team responsible for writing the initial project requirements and making a final approving decision about the deployment of the project. This person should have no interface to the technology process outside the drafting of business requirements.
Project Manager - This person ensures that a project is continually moving forward and that milestones are completed in accordance with any deadlines. It is this person and not the business owner that is to interfere with the technology process to ensure things are getting done. This person must act independently of the business owner and must not serve as a tool to the business. The project manager must not own or recommend changes to the requirements to the technology personnel. If changes to the requirements must be made this is a one way process from technology through the project manager to the business owner.
The flow of development should be the following:
1) Designers create the graphic mockup and then reassign the bug/project ticket to the project business owner.
2) Upon business approval the ticket should be reassigned to Markup staff or rejected back to design with specific change requests.
3) Markup writes the HTML and content. Any application or database requirements should be specified by business before the project begins and the Markup team should write code for all possible scenarios. The structure of content should reflect the organization of content on the visual markup completely without regard for presentation. The ticket should be reassigned back to Design for CSS creation.
4) Design writes the CSS to add presentation in compliance with the graphical mockup they created. The design team must have access to the HTML markup to add class attributes as necessary, but should not be allowed to make any other changes. The ticket should be reassigned to Applications to complete all server side requirements.
5) Applications should create all necessary requirements for database access. Ticket should be reassigned to UIT if the prior requirements are satisfactory or reassigned back to Markup for changes/additions.
6) UIT should be the final step to write the JavaScript interactions necessary for user-interface and AJAX requirements. UIT also should proof the prior completed markup for standards conformance, efficiency, and best practices. UIT should quickly reject the project if the work is less the acceptable. If additional Applications work is required reassign to Applications otherwise reassign ticket to QA.
7) QA is the final technology stop. These people test the business and functional requirements of the final product. The project cannot be released to production without QA sign off. If a business requirement fails QA must not sign off. Upon QA sign off the ticket should be reassigned to the business owner.
8) The business owner reviews the project and determines if all requirements are achieved. If changes/additions are required they can be submitted at this time. Changes/additions MUST NOT be submitted earlier, because frequent changes delays all projects. It is the responsibility of the business owner to ensure their initial requirements are complete and specific. If the requirements are not reviewed for fullness it is the fault of the business owner and changes can be submitted at this point. It is because of this responsibility, and other associated business responsibilities, that the business owner deserves to get paid more for being less involved.
That is the most efficient manner to get the job done. Separation of duties is extremely important and adherence to the process is extremely important. If those two things fail the entire process fails and business incurs significantly increased development costs.
If you are acting on your own and not part of a team I would still follow a similar process and push the role business owner onto the client. If the client wants to make changes/additions premature to the project completion then they can pay more money by amending a change addendum to the original requirements contract. You do not loose pay from increased labor because a client cannot make up their damn mind. If that is upsetting then the client can pay even more money for a contract cancellation. This is not mean it is business. If your time is not a valued commodity then you should not be in business as on your own.
I've been using the .NET stack for about 5 years, the ASP.NET MVC stack for about 3 months, and old ASP for 4 about years.
The key to dealing with complexity is mitigating it. In your code, always abstract away complexity to a reasonable level. For example, say there are 10 steps to placing an order. In that case, at a higher level, you would have a method 'SubmitOrder'; under it might be 10 method calls for inserting appropriate records, dealing with inventory and so on. In each of those 'business' layers, you can just deal with these business problem, and even below those layers, you would deal with data and mechanical details. The benefit to all of these layers is that you make each layer deal with a chunk of the work, and as you go up closer to the UI, you have an 'interface' that makes sense to the UI and the way the application needs to flow.
I think you're a little mistaken about UI development. UI development is difficult and usually underestimated in its importance.
There's a need to know the basics - before you jump to HAML, know your HTML so you know what you're abstracting away. Before you jump into jQuery take the time to learn JavaScript basics - you don't need to be a pro, but when you need to add some numbers together you should not go looking for a plugin. Have a good understanding about how to style things with CSS. There's a lot to topics and technologies to learn to be a competent web UI dev.
That said, for greenfield development Rails is pretty sweet. Pick jQuery. And don't choose a platform that hides how the web really works.
I use UI designers. They are excellent for that sort of thing.
I craft my application requirements around what is practical and sometimes easy in terms of front-end work.
My companies does mostly .NET development and we have been successfully using the 'net-tiers' templates for data access layer. The templates are loaded into CodeSmith code generator and pointed against a database. The end result is anything you could possibly think of. It'll generate your DAL, webservice, winforms UI library, web UI library, a sample website and administration tool and more. A great tool to save some development time. Check it out.
As far as actually working on UI, i think it may benefit to actually hire a professional. We have a professional designer who does some contract work with us. All that we do is wire up the UI to our UI components and code.
To speed up getting an HTML page that looks like you want:
First, decide on a design and draw what you want it to look like using a graphics program (if you've got a UI designer they do this step). Then, write static HTML and CSS that matches what you've drawn. Once that's done, write code that outputs HTML that matches the format that you've decided on.
I did this for a pretty complex set of states for a web app, and found that first writing HTML and CSS by hand, without having to wrestle with your server program, makes it go much faster.
The common mistake web developers do most often is that they start writing markup without thinking what they are making and How it will look like. Later when they stuck in any problem then they have to restructure the markup several times which also affect the design too and not an efficient way.
Good developers have habit to design first then develop. What I mean to is it is better to design your website in Photoshop first the start coding. This help them a lot because they knew what they are making and what they can do later as well.
After planning let's talk something about the coding environment. Of we have a nice setup for web development then it will increase our productivity. The major part is Text Editor .It is very important to have a nice Text Editor because we do most of our work on Text Editor. Text Editor plays an important role in increasing our productivity. Well,You can't use notepad or notepad++ in 2019 . They are outdated. The best Editor in 2019 is VSCODE and Sublime Text.
Personally I use sublime Text with some plugins.
Another important part of web development is version control. You can use git for this purpose. There are many online free cloud storages too like github , bitbucket etc. on which we can save our code and access it from any part of the world. Now these days many people are remote workers and to share their work they use git. It is not only helpful in web development but it is also helpful in every software industry. This also allow you to try different styles by simply making branches without messing up with the code.
The least famous but most important part of any software developer or web developer is to use comments while coding because on small project it is very easy to find a particular piece of code but when you are working on large projects or work with a team then comments are necessary because the other developer might not be familiar with your naming conventions. If we use comments then you know what this particular code do.
In last one more thing I would like to suggest for web development is to use browser's developers tool. They are truly awesome and very helpful in finding an error. Developers tools contain console, live code preview, responsive website preview with various mobile devices options and much more.
Some useful plugins for web development are:
Emmet
Prettify
Color Picker
File Icon
Git gutter
Integrated Terminal
Hope you get the answer of your question
Developers are extremely prolific individuals. They are continually improving their tools in order to increase their production and produce better outcomes faster.
For over a decade, I've been doing full-stack web development. One of the most difficult hurdles I'm having right now is that I need to focus on a range of tasks in a short amount of time, from designing user interfaces to deploying web applications.
To speed up my output, I use a number of technologies and frameworks. For UI, I usually use Bootstrap 4 and Bulma for most of my projects when it comes to building responsive web apps.
As I continue to focus on developing a variety of Web applications, I've seen that there are certain similar themes that I've noticed when doing so:
Consider the following example:
User Interface for Login/Signup/Forget Password
Layouts like a dashboard
Layouts for User Profiles
Form of Configuration
The list could go on and on.
I believe that most full-stack developers have come across the same UI pattern when developing their Web Apps UI.
So, to make the above procedure go faster, we created a simple tool that allows you to drag and drop — pre-made Bootstrap 4 components like Signup Form with Cover Image, Login Form, Dashboard Layout, and so on...
But wait, there are already a number of comparable Bootstrap builders out there, so why do I need to create another one?
The majority of Bootstrap Builders are focused on creating websites, however we choose to create this specifically for Creating Faster Web Apps UI.
Other aspects have also been taken into account.
Because drag and drop is sometimes a limiting choice for developers to modify the layout, we created an in-built full-featured Code Editor that allows you to generate numerous HTML, CSS, and JS files to extend the UI of your Web Apps.
In conclusion, you may make use of the following advantages.
Drag & Drop — Pre-Made Bootstrap Blocks — Dashboard Layouts, Signup
Forms, *Login Forms, E-Commerce Order Layouts, and more
Drag and Drop — Default Bootstrap Components to improve the layout
even more, such as Buttons, Cards, and so on...
Create/Edit UI enhancements using HTML, CSS, and JS.
Use the entire project for production or future development by
downloading it.
Publish to Netlify to show off your work to potential clients.
I hope, you enjoy using this tool for creating responsive Web Apps UI faster.