Thanks, I'll look into those. I just can't believe someone is suggesting I am against internet standards. I have gone on about them for longer than most people would have thought possible. I printed out my first RFCs on a teleprinter... lol
2009/7/21 Alun Rowe <[email protected]> > > On another mailing list I just received this. I hope you find it > useful... > > (Plug time) > > We've got quite a lot of info on my site about Mobile web dev: > > http://dev.opera.com/articles/mobile/ > > Generally the advice is to try to build your web sites so they will > work across mobile and desktop where possible, but think about > optimizing for mobile (various ways, eg CSS 3 media queries, tailoring > content on the server using feature detection, etc). And do lots of > testing on different browsers - iPhone, Opera Mini/Mobile, NetFront > and S60, Pocket IE, crappy default browsers on some phones as well. > > You should be able to get quite far just by using web standards. > > Best articles to start with are > > http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/introduction-to-the-mobile-web/ > > http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/designing-and-developing-mobile-web-site/ > http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-mobile-9-7-features-standards/ > > Chris Mills > Opera > > > On 20/07/2009 21:29, "Brian Butterworth" <[email protected]> wrote: > > "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 < <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > [email protected]> > > If this is specifically designed for mobile, e.g. <http://m.facebook.com> > m.facebook.com <http://m.facebook.com> or > <http://x.facebook.com> x.facebook.com <http://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< < > mailto:[email protected] <[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 < <mailto:[email protected]<[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< < > mailto:[email protected] <[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.uk < > http://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 > > > > - > Sent via the <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk> backstage.bbc.co.uk < > http://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]/ > > > > > > *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 > > > > 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. > -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
