3 ms·
(I'm the author of the article) There's two things at work here: 1. We're a small (2 people) shop; and 2. Our customers use mostly iPhones (more than 80% of m
by madrobby 16y ago
(I'm the author of the article)
There's two things at work here:
1. We're a small (2 people) shop; and
2. Our customers use mostly iPhones (more than 80% of mobile browsers that access our application).
For these reasons, we don't have special versions for any other mobile devices now (of course you can still use the desktop version of the app on the device, which works well on Android for example!).
The truth is, supporting mobile devices is hard work. If you want to support other devices than just for example the iPhone you will either need to provide a toned-down version of your app and have the same bad experience for all users; or special-case and provide versions that use the platforms to their full potential.
We choose to make 80% of our mobile users very happy, instead of providing a boring version that doesn't work so well to 100% of them.
- detst 16y agoThe alpha for jQuery Mobile should be out tomorrow. It aims to solve this problem. Are you using any mobile libraries/frameworks (other than the mentioned iScroll)?
- madrobby 16y agoNo, just iScroll. I don't think you can make a UI like we have with jQuery mobile or any other mobile "widgets" framework. They can only go so far - they give you one standardized experience. If you want real awesome stuff, you have to hand-code, and for that you want a framework/library that supports hand-written custom code well; thus Prototype.js is the optimal choice here.