"The phrase "mobile usability" is pretty much an oxymoron. Before the study, we had expected to get better results in London because the UK has a stronger tradition for mobile services than the US. However, the actual sessions didn't bear this out: the British sites were just as bad as the American sites, and users struggled about as much to get things done."
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability.html <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/mobile-usability.html> 2009/7/20 Brian Butterworth <[email protected]> > 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 > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
