3 ms·

From a UX perspective I think you're at an innovation disadvantage if you launch today without a touch-focused UI. Its a somewhat trivial leap to go from mobile

From a UX perspective I think you're at an innovation disadvantage if you launch today without a touch-focused UI. Its a somewhat trivial leap to go from mobile UX to desktop, but much harder the other way around. Desktop focused products have been making slow and really clumsy forays into mobile but I've yet to see a mobile product translate poorly onto desktop...

samgro 14y ago
I agree with this. Mobile first doesn't necessarily mean native first. From both design and engineering perspectives, it is much easier to build a website that looks good on both mobile and desktop and then add components to the desktop site than it is to start with a desktop site and pare it down to work well on mobile.
msrpotus 14y ago
The ideal solution is a site or app that works well on both, like how Apple's site works no matter what type of screen you use.
- bigiain 14y ago
  This is how we view the "mobile first" movement - not in terms of first developing a mobile version and then working out later how to turn it into a desktop site, but instead using the laser-like focus that "mobile" requires to properly identify and prioritize your goals. It's much more about getting your design requirements listed in order of importance - if you spend the time thinking about questions like "if I have to fit this product/site/app onto a 4inch diagonal screen, what are the absolutely most important bits to show first?", you'll have a much easier time designing upwards to the tablet/netbook/laptop/desktop sized versions. Shrinking down to a 4" screen from the 1600pixel wide monstrosity that every single stakeholder has insisted has _their_ "critical" piece included is _way_ more work. I've often used the "mobile first" approach to gently encourage clients to prioritize goals properly "I know we're not considering a mobile version of this site at this stage, but there's a _lot_ of conflicting requirements for your homepage here. If we were in the future to develop a mobile version, which of these things would we cut and which would we keep if we only had a phone screen to display everything on?" is an approach thats worked well for me…

samgro 14y ago

I agree with this. Mobile first doesn't necessarily mean native first. From both design and engineering perspectives, it is much easier to build a website that looks good on both mobile and desktop and then add components to the desktop site than it is to start with a desktop site and pare it down to work well on mobile.

msrpotus 14y ago

The ideal solution is a site or app that works well on both, like how Apple's site works no matter what type of screen you use.

bigiain 14y ago
This is how we view the "mobile first" movement - not in terms of first developing a mobile version and then working out later how to turn it into a desktop site, but instead using the laser-like focus that "mobile" requires to properly identify and prioritize your goals. It's much more about getting your design requirements listed in order of importance - if you spend the time thinking about questions like "if I have to fit this product/site/app onto a 4inch diagonal screen, what are the absolutely most important bits to show first?", you'll have a much easier time designing upwards to the tablet/netbook/laptop/desktop sized versions. Shrinking down to a 4" screen from the 1600pixel wide monstrosity that every single stakeholder has insisted has _their_ "critical" piece included is _way_ more work. I've often used the "mobile first" approach to gently encourage clients to prioritize goals properly "I know we're not considering a mobile version of this site at this stage, but there's a _lot_ of conflicting requirements for your homepage here. If we were in the future to develop a mobile version, which of these things would we cut and which would we keep if we only had a phone screen to display everything on?" is an approach thats worked well for me…