well, my cell phone is internet capable, so it isn't THAT far off. I am not really an early adopter. I don't get internet on my cell for the same reason I dont set my e mail to notify me -- I would find it distracting. But if your garden variety phone-in-a-box is internet capable then it's time to give the matter a little thought.
Dana Jim Davis writes: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 8:00 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Quick design question > > > > Dana Tierney wrote: > > >good point; they weren't real prevalent then > > > > They still aren't, and if they are they are rarely hooked up to the > > internet (except for certain areas like university campuses that have > > ubiquitous WLAN). > > Jochems's right- they are very rare still. However they are getting online > more and more. Most models of cell phone do the web "out of the box" and > many of the new handhelds have built in 802.11b. > > (That being said most "web browsing" on handhelds isn't done live in any > case: it's done with cached pages using out-of-the-box tools like MS Mobile > Favorites, AvantGo and MobiPocket.) > > 802.11b is taking off here in the states. It's still small comparatively, > but most airports, Starbucks and even many McDonald's provide connections. > The trick is getting people to subscribe for service, but that gets easier > to more widespread it gets. > > Like I said: another 2-3 years. > > As an aside, putting on my pundit hat: the "Holy Grail" of portables is the > foldable/rollable screen: right now portables a limited in size to somewhat > larger than their screen size: you just can't get smaller. > > However a screen which could "roll-up" might allow a handheld the size of > d-cell flashlight to have a 10" screen. However this technology will run > much later than WLAN and super cheap handhelds... perhaps 5-10 years at > least. > > So for a while, if things keep going like they are, we'll have very cheap, > very capable devices (lots of memory, fast CPUs, etc) with tiny screens > coupled with (at least in the urban areas) near universal wireless 'Net > connectivity (where this is from 802.11x, cell phone networks or something > else I'm not sure). > > > >Would you be able to allow for this by using > > >proportional measures such as width=85%? > > > > Yes. And less images, more contrast and no popup's and open in new window > > links. > > Yes - right now it's quite difficult to create a single layout that works > for all devices (unless you want to go the truly minimalist route) but by > leveraging style sheets you can swap out your large, long masthead with a > tiny, high contrast one, ensure that your text columns are truly liquid and > so forth. > > Right now most companies providing context are leveraging their existing CMS > system to provide the same content in small wrappers. That's a way to go if > you're targeting these folks, but to much work (I think) if you're just > trying to be courteous. > > Most sites, with a very small investment in time and work, can use CSS 2.0 > to do this. If your design was liquid in the first place (as I think they > should be) then it's really just a matter of determine which elements (most > graphics) force the display to lengths. > > Jim Davis > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
