3 ms·
Mobile offered a bit hope. First, the screens were to small to clutter with complicated GUIs. Second, you could substitute some visual controls with touch.
by peter303 11y ago
Mobile offered a bit hope. First, the screens were to small to clutter with complicated GUIs. Second, you could substitute some visual controls with touch.
- hyperpape 11y agoThe piece by Maciej (http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm) on page weight points out that a lot of sites have responded by developing desktop sites as if people are using them with touchscreens. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoI recently tried to get my mobile provider to set up data roaming while I was away from home. (You can't set up data roaming from home, for reasons that remain mysterious and unexplained.) The fact I was using a mobile device didn't stop my provider's site from asking three times if I wanted to take part in a survey, or from displaying a floating "Would you like to chat?" dialog that was so big it literally covered a quarter of the mobile screen - and which moved to the same position whenever I try to scroll it out of the way. It also didn't help my provider provide the right links to the right content. Eventually I gave up. My gf already had data working, so we used her phone for everything. The experience was impressively terrible. Unfortunately if you don't have UI clue, mobile is just another way to get stuff wrong.
- lmm 11y agoTry using an iphone (or spoofing your user agent as one). Often they don't test or care about any other phones, but iphone users get the VIP treatment.