Another good mobile site is wikipedia's... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Felt_Like_A_Kiss <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Felt_Like_A_Kiss> 2009/7/20 Alun Rowe <[email protected]>
> > People aren't looking for beauty in design on mobile. They usually are > looking for specific data to accomplish a set task. Setting a page header > using a background tile and an overlayed logo would be suitable in a mobile > app IMO > OK. Yeah, tiled and overlaid logo. What size is the overlay logo? You might not need "beauty", but graphics that don't fit the layout are just plain bad. Too small to see, or so big they take up the whole screen, is poor usability. > Also what about the people who are using the m.domain on the laptops, pc's > etc as they want optimised data. Will they see an ugly version? > You get to choose the one you want, don't you? Or have I missed something? > > Alun > > > On 20 Jul 2009, at 18:48, "Brian Butterworth" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Iain, > > Your points are all good. > > My general idea was to do something like these "single tall colum" mobile > sites. Certain search engines like to have the "m." as a prefix to denote a > mobile site. > <http://m.guardian.co.uk/>http://m.guardian.co.uk/ > > <http://m.guardian.co.uk/>or > > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/index.html> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/index.html > > or > > <http://m.twitter.com>http://m.twitter.com > > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/index.html>I just want to know the maximum > image dimensions so that the very few that I am going to use are not too big > for this kind of layout. I just find it very displeasing to get images > that are out of scale to the device. > > Given the data for the first list of phones that have come in give the X,Y > (max image size) as: > > 224,300; 315,460; 168,180; 120,92; 120,92; 300,300; 320,480; 360,640; > 120,128; 120,92; 168,180; 235,240; 120,92; 300,300; 224,280; 232,300; > 120,92; 228,228; 300,240; 224,340; 300,200; 120,92; 120,92; 236,136; > 228,280; 300,448; 440,700; 224,280; 360,640; 234,300; 229,210; 120,92; > > IMHO there is considerable scope for improvement with a few simple tweeks > to get the image the right size and format. > > Anything that scales an image on the page usually looks very poor, and even > on this small sample the "max x" goes from 120 to 440, and the "max y" from > 92 to 700. > > Another issue, of course, is that some browsers (my G1 does this) use a > server to degrade the quality (and file size) of JPG images, which is > probably OK for photos, but not for a page-header logo. > > > > 2009/7/20 Iain Wallace < <[email protected]>[email protected]> > >> If this is specifically designed for mobile, e.g. <http://m.facebook.com> >> m.facebook.com or >> <http://x.facebook.com>x.facebook.com and you've already determined if >> the user is on a >> mobile device or not, there's not much more on the server you can >> reliably do to determine the screen size. For more recent smart phones >> running something Webkit based (Android, iPhone) or Opera mobile you >> should be able to get away with interrogating the window property in >> JS to determine a maximum width, which you can then use to either >> resize images on the fly that are already there (which is what google >> reader does) or to write image tags with a size of your choice in the >> actual image request, e.g.: >> >> <http://strawp.net/img/daynight/mariosnow/100x100.png> >> http://strawp.net/img/daynight/mariosnow/100x100.png >> >> compared with: >> >> <http://strawp.net/img/daynight/mariosnow/300x100.png> >> http://strawp.net/img/daynight/mariosnow/300x100.png >> >> which are generated on the fly using PHP (with caching on the server) >> >> you're still then left with devices that can't handle JS at all, to >> which I would say the safest bet is not to use images directly in the >> layout, rather have them as background images which won't break the >> page width. This also has the advantage that if a device can't handle >> proper CSS you should hopefully just get reasonably plain HTML. >> >> From mobile devices I've owned (Winmo, Sony Ericsson, Android) the >> user will often have the image either resized for them or have the >> ability to zoom out if it's too big. >> >> In summary, I maintain that separation of layout into CSS from content >> in HTML and letting the page deteriorate gracefully with the >> capabilities of the browser is the sane path forward. Try doing clever >> things to make it fit the width if you want, but you probably don't >> need to if you have the CSS nailed. >> >> Cheers, >> Iain >> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Brian Butterworth<<[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > Ian, >> > Yes, I agree. >> > The width and height is of the maximum picture size. I'm going to use >> > percentages in the CSS for the textual layout, but the images need to be >> the >> > right size for the device, in particular the site header. >> > And then there is the question of the phone supporting CSS! >> > I was just trying to figure out the phone capabilities first. >> > >> > 2009/7/20 Iain Wallace < <[email protected]>[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Trying to match the style/layout of a site to the expected resolution >> >> of the device that you think is displaying it is going about it the >> >> wrong way - this is why CSS has percentage widths for doing layouts. >> >> >> >> Or is the question more about what you can send back to the server in >> >> order to choose an image size? >> >> >> >> If you want an example of something that does this quite well, visit >> >> the iPhone/Android optimised interface for Google Reader using a user >> >> agent switcher. This will load up images in atom feeds and then >> >> instantly resize them in javascript to fit the page width. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian Butterworth<<[email protected]> >> [email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > I've been looking at adapting some sites to work better on mobile >> >> > devices. >> >> > I can do the stripping down everything to text and minimal graphics >> and >> >> > so >> >> > on, that's the easy bit. >> >> > Does anyone know of anything reliable that can tell me the width in >> >> > pixels >> >> > of the device? >> >> > I was hoping that Glow would cover this, but it does't. >> >> > -- >> >> > >> >> > Brian Butterworth >> >> > >> >> > follow me on twitter: <http://twitter.com/briantist> >> http://twitter.com/briantist >> >> > web: <http://www.ukfree.tv>http://www.ukfree.tv - independent >> digital television and >> >> > switchover >> >> > advice, since 2002 >> >> > >> >> - >> >> Sent via the <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk>backstage.bbc.co.ukdiscussion >> >> group. To unsubscribe, please >> >> visit <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html> >> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> >> Unofficial list archive: >> >> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Brian Butterworth >> > >> > follow me on twitter: <http://twitter.com/briantist> >> http://twitter.com/briantist >> > web: <http://www.ukfree.tv>http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital >> television and switchover >> > advice, since 2002 >> > >> >> - >> Sent via the <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk>backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion >> group. To unsubscribe, please visit >> <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html> >> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> Unofficial list archive: >> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> > > > > -- > > Brian Butterworth > > follow me on twitter: <http://twitter.com/briantist> > http://twitter.com/briantist > web: <http://www.ukfree.tv>http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital > television and switchover advice, since 2002 > > > > This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the > individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information > that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If > you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated > with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message > in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and > deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from us may be > monitored. > > > > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as > information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or > incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility > for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any > attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If > verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. Any views or > opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily > represent those of the company. > > > > *Alun Rowe* > > *Pentangle Internet Limited* > > 2 Buttermarket > > Thame > > Oxfordshire > > OX9 3EW > > Tel: +44 8700 339905 > > Fax: +44 8700 339906 > *Please direct all support requests to > **[email protected]*<[email protected]> > > Pentangle Internet Limited is a limited company registered in England and > Wales. Registered number: 3960918. Registered office: 1 Lauras Close, Great > Staughton, Cambridgeshire PE19 5DP > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
