4 ms·

> The web is responsive by default, making it not friendly to screen readers/phones takes extra work Oh, the irony of the iPhone. When it was launched, its uni

> The web is responsive by default, making it not friendly to screen readers/phones takes extra work Oh, the irony of the iPhone. When it was launched, its unique proposition was that it was the only phone which could render normal webpages, while previously specially tuned XHTML code and handheld stylesheets were required. And what did we do with this? We started the era of specially crafted mobile sites and mobile first.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
IIRC it was more because of screen size and finger input. I had a Treo before an Iphone and the stylis made liquid/responsive sites very usable without huge buttons. Still, both then and now mobile requires reducing options to avoid lots of zooming and panning. And less JS is better.
jordache 6y ago
You are not getting it. Cross device compatibility is not a simplistic notion that the desktop ui just needs to reflow and scale down into a smaller screen. Properly done multi device support will recognize different “job to be done” in mobile vs desktop. If approached the problem space in this way, then you end up with different ui in mobile than desktop, for many applications
- masswerk 6y ago
  Mind that the USP of the iPhone was its ability to render a view into a full-size desktop view with full Webkit capabilities, which was meant to put an end to any special handheld formats like WAP and XHTML + handheld CSS for mobile. If it had been meant to require a dedicated skin, chances are that Apple would have specified a special multitouch media attribute for dedicated stylesheets. Whether rendering desktop views on mobile would have been ideal under the aspects of usability and/or UX, is a different question. (However, I think, developments were originally more driven by the want for a "native UI" experience.) Regarding "not just a simplistic reflow", if you take this notion seriously, this applies not only to the presentation of content, but also to the content itself. Notably, shorter, less "baroque" copy text for handheld devices, but richer text and more related or in-depth information on the desktop. However, I've never seen purposefully redacted content like this, targeting multiple platforms. Instead, it's mobile first also for content on the desktop, where often a mere couple of paragraphs are meant to be a full article or blog post.
  - jordache 6y ago
    >I've never seen purposefully redacted content like this, targeting multiple platforms. When your user base consist of different personas, doing distinctly different job to be done, one option is to tailor the application for each scenario. Depending on the consequence of the app and the business need, ideal UX needs for each persona may no longer seem superficial to ignore. A normalized experience may be a show stopper. In that case it's worth it to invest in building/maintaining different view / functionalities, specific for the user agent type. If you go even further in this direction, then you invest in building a mobile app, to suite the use case of mobile and desktop.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

IIRC it was more because of screen size and finger input. I had a Treo before an Iphone and the stylis made liquid/responsive sites very usable without huge buttons. Still, both then and now mobile requires reducing options to avoid lots of zooming and panning. And less JS is better.

jordache 6y ago

You are not getting it. Cross device compatibility is not a simplistic notion that the desktop ui just needs to reflow and scale down into a smaller screen. Properly done multi device support will recognize different “job to be done” in mobile vs desktop. If approached the problem space in this way, then you end up with different ui in mobile than desktop, for many applications

masswerk 6y ago
Mind that the USP of the iPhone was its ability to render a view into a full-size desktop view with full Webkit capabilities, which was meant to put an end to any special handheld formats like WAP and XHTML + handheld CSS for mobile. If it had been meant to require a dedicated skin, chances are that Apple would have specified a special multitouch media attribute for dedicated stylesheets. Whether rendering desktop views on mobile would have been ideal under the aspects of usability and/or UX, is a different question. (However, I think, developments were originally more driven by the want for a "native UI" experience.) Regarding "not just a simplistic reflow", if you take this notion seriously, this applies not only to the presentation of content, but also to the content itself. Notably, shorter, less "baroque" copy text for handheld devices, but richer text and more related or in-depth information on the desktop. However, I've never seen purposefully redacted content like this, targeting multiple platforms. Instead, it's mobile first also for content on the desktop, where often a mere couple of paragraphs are meant to be a full article or blog post.
- jordache 6y ago
  >I've never seen purposefully redacted content like this, targeting multiple platforms. When your user base consist of different personas, doing distinctly different job to be done, one option is to tailor the application for each scenario. Depending on the consequence of the app and the business need, ideal UX needs for each persona may no longer seem superficial to ignore. A normalized experience may be a show stopper. In that case it's worth it to invest in building/maintaining different view / functionalities, specific for the user agent type. If you go even further in this direction, then you invest in building a mobile app, to suite the use case of mobile and desktop.