Decision Framework for Mobile Development Methods

Abstract

Abstract-Recently, the mobile applications have emerged with the uprising smartphone trend. Now-a-days, a huge number of mobile operating systems require more developments, in order to achieve that, Open source cross-platform mobile frameworks came up, in order to allow importing the same code on various operating systems. In this paper, the focus is made on commonly used mobile development methods, and a process that selects the most suitable solution for a particular need is proposed. Eventually, a new framework that helps to choose the appropriate approach and tool respectively is suggested, according to a convenient survey based on binary questions, in addition to certain criteria.

Decision Framework for Cross-Platform Mobile Development Frameworks Using an Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methodology

“…In (Mohamed & Abdelmounaïm, 2017), the authors introduced a methodology for selecting the best technique and tool for developing a mobile application based on a simple survey with binary questions and a set of criteria. The proposed framework is divided into two phases: the first allows for the deduction of the mobile development method (native, web, or hybrid) based on a completion percentage renowned as "precision," and the second determines the appropriate tool for each method whose precision exceeds 50% based on a set of relevant criteria.…”

“…• The experience desired by the user must be instantaneous, available after closing the application if it is not saved, locally saved data retrieved from the Internet and integrated into common applications, such as messaging, email and social media. (Hudli et al, 2015) (Palmieri et al, 2012), tool restrictions (Sommer & Krusche, 2013), dependencies (Sommer & Krusche, 2013), testing (Umuhoza & Brambilla, 2016) (Sommer & Krusche, 2013), debugging (Que et al, 2016) (Botella et al, 2016) (Dhillon & Mahmoud, 2015) (Sommer & Krusche, 2013) (Ohrt & Turau, 2012), simulator (Latif et al, 2016), emulator (Hudli et al, 2015) (Ohrt & Turau, 2012), test framework (Hudli et al, 2015) D2 User interface design (Aurelius, 2020) (Rieger & Majchrzak, 2019), GUI design(er) (Heitkötter et al, 2013) (Ohrt & Turau, 2012), graphical tool for GUI (Mohamed & Abdelmounaïm, 2017), UI design assistant (Botella et al, 2016), no-code/ low-code support (Hudli et al, 2015), customizability (Sommer & Krusche, 2013) D3 Continuous delivery (Aurelius, 2020) (Rieger & Majchrzak, 2019), Building time (Ebone et al, 2018), build service availability (Dhillon & Mahmoud, 2015), build support (Hudli et al, 2015), simplified/automatic builds (Sommer & Krusche, 2013), compile without SDK (Ohrt & Turau, 2012), instant update (Charkaoui et al, 2014), upgrade (Que et al, 2016), updates (Hudli et al, 2015) D4 Pace of development (Aurelius, 2020), ...…”

“…• The experience desired by the user must be instantaneous, available after closing the application if it is not saved, locally saved data retrieved from the Internet and integrated into common applications, such as messaging, email and social media. (Heitkötter et al, 2013), mobile platforms (Vilček & Jakopec, 2017), versions (Botella et al, 2016), portability (Sommer & Krusche, 2013), mobile operating systems (Palmieri et al, 2012) I3 Long-term feasibility (Aurelius, 2020) (Rieger & Majchrzak, 2019) (Heitkötter et al, 2013), popularity (Mohamed & Abdelmounaïm, 2017), count of updates (Vitols et al, 2013), community (Vitols et al, 2013) D1 Development environment and testing (Aurelius, 2020), Development environment (Rieger & Majchrzak, 2019) (Latif et al, 2016) (Heitkötter et al, 2013) (Ribeiro & da Silva, 2012), Testing (Rieger & Majchrzak, 2019), IDE (Que et al, 2016) (Dhillon & Mahmoud, 2015) (Hudli et al, 2015) (Palmieri et al, 2012), tool restrictions (Sommer & Krusche, 2013), dependencies (Sommer & Krusche, 2013), testing (Umuhoza & Brambilla, 2016) (Sommer & Krusche, 2013), debugging (Que et al, 2016) (Botella et al, 2016) (Dhillon & Mahmoud, 2015) (Sommer & Krusche, 2013) (Ohrt & Turau, 2012), simulator (Latif et al, 2016), emulator (Hudli et al, 2015) (Ohrt & Turau, 2012), test framework (Hudli et al, 2015) D2 User interface design (Aurelius, 2020)…”

An empirical investigation of performance overhead in cross-platform mobile development frameworks

“…In addition, several articles touch the topic of cross-platform framework performance but rest on a qualitative level of argumentation based on the underlying approach (e.g., assuming that interpreted apps have an inferior performance compared to native apps) or discussing subjective experiences with the general performance of a sample application (Humayoun et al 2013;Palmieri et al 2012;Latif et al 2016b;El-Kassas et al 2017;Lachgar and Abdali 2017;Rieger and Majchrzak 2016). For example, Botella et al (2016) found that application load durations are significantly worse for apps built with Sencha Touch compared to Ionic, although both are developed using web technologies.…”