Comments on: Making mobile mistakes

By: bgrggfe

bgrggfe — Sat, 26 May 2012 02:00:00 +0000

Imean Shaheed was working last Sunday when federal agents rushed into the Patapsco Flea Market, announced over the loudspeaker that the bazaar was closed for business and shut down vendors selling Cheap Louis Vuitton Handbags and Tiffany & Co. jewelry."It was like the movies," the 20-year-old Shaheed said Saturday after the Cherry Hill flea market re-opened. Some booths were empty, but the parking lot was full and customers flocked to vendors such as Shaheed who were open for business via Louis Vuitton Outlet Store.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:43:00 +0000

What amazes me is that a lot of websites of big companies don't have a mobile website. I mean if Frank the plumber has it, why for a multibillion dollar company is that hard to do a mobile version of the website?

Amy @ Cowboy Millionaire Review

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:53:27 +0000

@scott, Can I ask what browsers and OS you supported? How was your testing done?

Been a lot of interesting talk about this over the last few days. Seems like there is a bit more discussion and acceptance (or “caveats”) from some top names in the industry that responsive web design is not the golden ticket, just another tool in the arsenal.

http://www.cloudfour.com/weekend-reading-responsive-web-design-and-mobile-context/

By: Ali B

Ali B — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:08:48 +0000

Useful information today from Jakob Neilson on this topic http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-redesign.html

By: Scott Jehl

Scott Jehl — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:42:49 +0000

Anthony: the approach we’ve been using lately (sorry – no links to share yet) is to serve a fluid width mobile-friendly layout first without any media queries, and use min/max queries to scale the fluid layouts all the way up to desktop resolutions (in both presentation and behavior).

Non-media-query-supporting desktop browsers like IE can be patched with some very lightweight JavaScript (see Respond.js: https://github.com/scottjehl/Respond). Images can be served responsively/responsively to eliminate overhead (http://filamentgroup.com/lab/responsive_images_experimenting_with_context_aware_image_sizing/ ). From there, all your heavier JavaScript can be loaded dynamically based on some feature detects.

In the end, a complex site is reduced to its markup weight plus some mobile-optimized assets – which, if built responsibly, can compete with the performance of the average mobile-specici, content-oriented website.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:34:18 +0000

I understand and agree that responsive web design is the future for mobile and web, however I just seem to think that is ignoring the present.

Many phones do not support media queries, lots of phones have limited javascript capabilities and there is a greater gulf in the capabilities of browsers on mobiles. Modern mobile browsers love javascript and html5, older browsers are plain old xhtml or xhtml-mp.

if we follow the argument that we should start with mobile sites then build up we are really not ensuring the best browsing experience for our visitors.

So I still think that at this time, if you want to support all users then you need to think about serving different content to different devices. Don't give my old series 40 nokia loads of javascript to choke on, don't confuse it with html5 (it prefers xhtml-mp) and don't have a convoluted flow of css files confusing it because it won't recognise media queries. Neither will my mothers blackberry.

Also, how would this work with high content sites? Examples being BBC, SKY, or maybe a local council site?

By: Patrick Nichols

Patrick Nichols — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:44:57 +0000

I tend to agree with other commenters. More and more, I find myself visiting websites using an iPod Touch. Mostly because I hate waiting for my PC to boot up or my wife is already using the computer.

It's very rare that I'm in a hurry, in fact I'm usually relaxing on the couch, lying in bed, or ... yes, on the can. There have been a number of times where I've been served a mobile website with reduced functionality. After being slightly annoyed, I look for the "View full website" link or leave if the information isn't important enough.

One of my favorite comments is why does the mobile version get the streamlined content? Does that extra stuff need to be there when using view with a desktop/laptop/netbook/whatever computer, especially if it gets in the way of finding what I want? For example, my local movie theatre's website works great on an iPod. It's all about finding a specific theatre and getting the showtimes. But if I visit the same website on a desktop computer, I need to wade through popups, Flash ads, theatre descriptions, etc. before getting the showtimes.

Now I understand the argument for reducing the amount of content being sent out to a mobile device. But I personally don't care since I'm using WiFi and not paying for a data plan.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:17:09 +0000

Just noticed what I think is a small typo:

"I see the same thing happening with mobile. Many web designers are claiming they can do web too"

Shouldn't that say 'claiming they can do mobile too'?

By: Jeremy Keith

Jeremy Keith — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:54:05 +0000

Paul, I think it's interesting that you say "I feel that equally about screen readers" — that gets to the heart of the fallacy I see in serving up a completely different experience to a person just because of the device they are using. In the bad ol' days, it was common practice to create a "separate but equal" text-only site for screenreader users. It ghetto-ised those users and it was, frankly, a cop out. These days, it's understood that screenreader users should get the same content as everyone else, but that the site should be built the right way to begin with. (interestingly, some sites noticed that "regular" non-screenreader users were choosing to go to the "accessible" version because it was faster and simpler—there's a lesson to be learned there for those who still think of desktop and mobile sites as different things)

I think the reason why you might not be "getting it" is that you think I'm talking about retro-fitting an existing desktop site to make it fit better on a smaller screen. I'm not. I'm saying that the problem is not with "mobile" websites, the problem is with "desktop" websites. We shouldn't be creating device-specific websites at all, whether the device in question is a mobile phone or a desktop computer. The truth is that we are all creating device-specific websites ...namely desktop-specific sites. The solution is not to create separate websites for phones/tablets/fridgets, etc.; the solution is to build a site that works well for any device ...and that includes desktop/laptop users who are currently being served up bloated sprawling crap.

Just as retrofitting for accessibility will never work as well as designing and developing for accessibility in the first place, retrofitting for mobile or any other device will never work as well as designing and developing for everyone in the first place.

Some characterise this as "one web" but a more accurate term is "universal design" (see the book on this subject by Matt May and Wendy Chisolm).

By: Paul Boag

Paul Boag — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:42:46 +0000

Hey Jeremy, great to see your comment. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My point is that mobile and desktop are difference for a lot of different reasons and that you cannot treat them as the same thing. I feel that equally about screen readers, TVs, or any other device that accesses the web. To throw a one size fits all solution at them in terms of content (or more particularly hierarchy and organisation of information) is in my opinion naive. That said Jeremy (and I mean this with all sincerity) you are a smarter guy than me. It may well be that I am just not getting this. You just havent convinced me yet.