5 ms·

Why wouldn't you use two separate sites for desktop and mobile browsers? The common layouts for both are very different and require different designs to use ea

Why wouldn't you use two separate sites for desktop and mobile browsers? The common layouts for both are very different and require different designs to use each affectively.

timdorr 16y ago
Everyone needs to learn about media queries. http://robot-or-not.com/ http://robot-or-not.com/ - Resize your browser window and the CSS changes. Check it out on an iPhone too. Works great and can be hacked into IE.
- dhs 16y ago
  Here's an intro into media queries: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/ http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/
mambodog 16y ago
One possible issue with this is that in terms of page size/layout, iPad and other tablets are probably more likely to fall into the 'desktop' category.
laut 16y ago
Because it takes more resources to make two sites instead of one. Also on the iPad why would you want a crippled "mobile version" of a website, when the device is capable of displaying a normal website?
- adamdecaf 16y ago
  I understand taking more resources to create two sites, but an iPad and iPod Touch can't really show the same page. So, just have the iPad show the desktop version and the iPod show the mobile.
  - natrius 16y ago
    You'd still have to take the lack of :hover into consideration for both versions, so nothing has been gained.
- Silhouette 16y ago
  > Also on the iPad why would you want a crippled "mobile version" of a website, when the device is capable of displaying a normal website? Apparently, the device is not capable of presenting a normal web site properly. In this case, the limitation is a little ironic. The original MacOS menu system, which required click-and-hold and used a single mouse button, was an excellent example of giving the user feedback as they navigate a system. Use of hover effects on interactive elements on web pages has a similar purpose. The linked blog post suggests that the end of this story is the demise of :hover. There is at least one possible alternative ending: it turns out that mobile browsing on devices with small screens and automatically reformatted pages, with limited interaction possibilities and no support for widely used technologies, simply isn't as useful as having a fully capable browser on a fully capable device. Mobile browsing has a lot of potential, but no-one says that current generation of smartphones is the best way to do it. The iPhone is still a relatively new product, Android is even newer, and despite all the hype these still represent only a relatively small share of the smartphone market between them. Analysts have started to question Apple's closed infrastructure and whether it will stand up to competition as the market develops [1]. Maybe in a year or two we will wonder what possessed anyone to think that trying to have a mobile phone and a browser on the same device was a good idea. Time will tell... [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10259552.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10259552.stm
  - DLWormwood 16y ago
    > Maybe in a year or two we will wonder what possessed anyone to think that trying to have a mobile phone and a browser on the same device was a good idea. Time will tell... Time has already told that one. In certain areas of the world, like Japan and other parts of the “Far East,” phones and browsers have been the same device for years, if not decades. Japan especially never had a fully blown PC culture, so they standardized on text messaging over e-mail, “emoji” instead of emoticons, and q-codes over URLs. Web browsing and telephony are both communication activities more than computational ones, so there is a certain logic and cultural precident in place to move the communication activities away from computers to more dedicated and portable appliances.
  - dagw 16y ago
    Maybe in a year or two we will wonder what possessed anyone to think that trying to have a mobile phone and a browser on the same device was a good idea. I've actually been thinking along those lines for my next phone upgrade. Instead of getting the HTC Desire, I'm now seriously considering getting a Dell Streak as a portable browsing platform (I know it is technically also a phone) plus a simple solid dependable phone that is optimized for making calls, only needs to be recharged once a week and is cheap enough that I don't have to be too worried about it. Since very few apps actually make use of or enhance the phone calling abilities of smart phones, it seems unnecessary to have everything on one device. Am I a freak or have other people had the same idea?
gurraman 16y ago
I'd rather look at it like progressive enhancement: make one site that works and enhance it in ways the different clients make possible.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
My question would be why would you use different sites if it's only the presentation layer and not the content layer that needs adjusting? UA targeted CSS or XSLT transforms should do this sort of work surely.

Why wouldn't you use two separate sites for desktop and mobile browsers? The common layouts for both are very different and require different designs to use each affectively.

timdorr 16y ago

Everyone needs to learn about media queries. http://robot-or-not.com/ http://robot-or-not.com/ - Resize your browser window and the CSS changes. Check it out on an iPhone too. Works great and can be hacked into IE.

dhs 16y ago
Here's an intro into media queries: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/ http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design/

mambodog 16y ago

One possible issue with this is that in terms of page size/layout, iPad and other tablets are probably more likely to fall into the 'desktop' category.

laut 16y ago

Because it takes more resources to make two sites instead of one. Also on the iPad why would you want a crippled "mobile version" of a website, when the device is capable of displaying a normal website?

adamdecaf 16y ago
I understand taking more resources to create two sites, but an iPad and iPod Touch can't really show the same page. So, just have the iPad show the desktop version and the iPod show the mobile.
- natrius 16y ago
  You'd still have to take the lack of :hover into consideration for both versions, so nothing has been gained.
Silhouette 16y ago
> Also on the iPad why would you want a crippled "mobile version" of a website, when the device is capable of displaying a normal website? Apparently, the device is not capable of presenting a normal web site properly. In this case, the limitation is a little ironic. The original MacOS menu system, which required click-and-hold and used a single mouse button, was an excellent example of giving the user feedback as they navigate a system. Use of hover effects on interactive elements on web pages has a similar purpose. The linked blog post suggests that the end of this story is the demise of :hover. There is at least one possible alternative ending: it turns out that mobile browsing on devices with small screens and automatically reformatted pages, with limited interaction possibilities and no support for widely used technologies, simply isn't as useful as having a fully capable browser on a fully capable device. Mobile browsing has a lot of potential, but no-one says that current generation of smartphones is the best way to do it. The iPhone is still a relatively new product, Android is even newer, and despite all the hype these still represent only a relatively small share of the smartphone market between them. Analysts have started to question Apple's closed infrastructure and whether it will stand up to competition as the market develops [1]. Maybe in a year or two we will wonder what possessed anyone to think that trying to have a mobile phone and a browser on the same device was a good idea. Time will tell... [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10259552.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10259552.stm
- DLWormwood 16y ago
  > Maybe in a year or two we will wonder what possessed anyone to think that trying to have a mobile phone and a browser on the same device was a good idea. Time will tell... Time has already told that one. In certain areas of the world, like Japan and other parts of the “Far East,” phones and browsers have been the same device for years, if not decades. Japan especially never had a fully blown PC culture, so they standardized on text messaging over e-mail, “emoji” instead of emoticons, and q-codes over URLs. Web browsing and telephony are both communication activities more than computational ones, so there is a certain logic and cultural precident in place to move the communication activities away from computers to more dedicated and portable appliances.
- dagw 16y ago
  Maybe in a year or two we will wonder what possessed anyone to think that trying to have a mobile phone and a browser on the same device was a good idea. I've actually been thinking along those lines for my next phone upgrade. Instead of getting the HTC Desire, I'm now seriously considering getting a Dell Streak as a portable browsing platform (I know it is technically also a phone) plus a simple solid dependable phone that is optimized for making calls, only needs to be recharged once a week and is cheap enough that I don't have to be too worried about it. Since very few apps actually make use of or enhance the phone calling abilities of smart phones, it seems unnecessary to have everything on one device. Am I a freak or have other people had the same idea?

gurraman 16y ago

I'd rather look at it like progressive enhancement: make one site that works and enhance it in ways the different clients make possible.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

My question would be why would you use different sites if it's only the presentation layer and not the content layer that needs adjusting? UA targeted CSS or XSLT transforms should do this sort of work surely.