There is no native FM client for BlackBerry (or Android for that matter), only for iOS.
Even on iOS you can't expect screens created for the desktop to be usable. Your users will have the best experience with dedicated screens created for their device.
If they want to stick with BlackBerry you will need to create web pages they can use on that device.
You probably should be using FM Server regardless of this change. Live backups and pure performance are the main reasons why.
To further complicate things, FMI has stated that they don't support mobile browsers with WebDirect, so you can't guarantee that WebDirect will work with the non-iOS mobile devices unless you go to Custom Web Publishing pages (CWP), which is a lot more work compared to WebDirect or IWP.
I agree entirely with wimdecorte; yes, you should install FM Server for any WAN deployment.
Custom Web Publishing pages (CWP), which is a lot more work compared to WebDirect or IWP.
Is this fact or opinion?
Having developed UI for all three methods, I’m strongly in favour of CWP. WebDirect is really exciting but it is still tomorrow-ware for most use cases.
However, blackberry users don’t want fancy UI. The browser doesn’t like it. They’ll want an extremely minimal, lean, fast, web. It may suit IWP if they are on v11 or v12 but you should use FMServer.
+1 on CWP. You can design the HTML with style attributes (class=abc) that call CSS. That way you have very flexible documents (web pages) that could work well on various browsers. There could be separate CSS used by the same HTML and make the page look good on Blackberry browser and desktop browsers. (Or any tablet browser).
-- sent from myPhone --
I agree with you and Beverly that CWP is more flexible,
but absolutely more work than just enabling WebDirect or IWP in the served file.
(Anyone ever set up CWP for a full-blown data-entry file in 2 mintues?)
Stephen Huston wrote:
just enabling WebDirect or IWP in the served file.
That's the part that usually falls flat. In order to use WebD properly you really need to design layouts and workflows for that purpose given the differences in behavior between WebD and normal FMP.
The "more work" obviously depends on the profiency in the environment, but the past has shown that "just enabling" more often than not is a failure.
Of course, not Stephen. Yes. a lot of work. But absolutely possible to display on more than Mac/Windows/iOS!!
We could ask: (Anyone ever set up WebDirect / IWP for a full-blown data-entry file in 2 minutes?) Not me
But to take your teasing seriously, I have a suite of tools that I use to explore CWP enabled FMP files, so let’s start the timer.
step one: connect via FMP and enable one or more privilege sets for CWP ( a minute or a bit more)
step two: switch to web browser, locate tools bookmark, enter the server IP and user credentials ( ten - twenty seconds)
step three: choose the file to work with ( a few seconds)
step four : choose the layout to work with ( a few seconds)
step five: choose the record to work with ( a few seconds)
At step six I am looking at a fully functional data entry layout.
step six: edit record
Double all of those times, it doesn’t make much difference.
There isn’t very much polish and on first glance users will probably see too much data. If that’s a problem it only takes a few minutes to add new layouts and pull the unwanted fields. There still isn’t much polish but I can use my tool set to build a fully functional CWP web site for any FMP database and put it online in the same sort of time that it takes me to boil the kettle and make a pot of tea.
I forgot the BUT.
BUT, as we all know, most clients want more than a table by table view of their fields.
They are reconsidering. Whew!
Thank you all for your help.
Not in two minutes but yes in two hours, including special layouts and scripting.