Philip, as I described in the message I just sent, I too am developing a very complex and detailed application where I was convinced that one needed a huge screen to appreciate it. After many discussions with my contract designer she was able to convince me that the mobile user was worth pursuing.
I wasn't initially convinced, so I approached several users and discussed the idea of using a phone or a tablet. They hadn't even imagined such a use case. With one, I started brainstorming and we realized that being able to walk around with the application, on a phone or tablet, was in fact a game-changer for the industry (I'll leave the specific industry out of it). After discussing it with other users, they (to my surprise) started to become huge advocates for it. Now, the mobile use case has become a cornerstone of the new product, a true differentiator from the competition. And not only has thinking about mobile changed our market strategy, it has, I believe, made a better product for the full screen user (see my other message). In short, I think people who ignore mobile do so at their own peril, or at least to their own market detriment. Chris On 4/10/14 9:18 AM, "Philip Taylor" <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > >I develop two sorts of site -- those that convey information, >and those that set out to exploit web functionality to the full >in order to achieve on-screen something that might otherwise >require using a full GUI toolkit in order to accomplish. > >The first are pure text. They say what needs to be said >and no more. I imagine that they will render satisfactorily >on any tablet or mobile device, but lacking both I have >never tested them against such a benchmark. > >The second (of which an example can be seen at the link below) >typically require a screen resolution of at least 1152 x 864 >in order to display satisfactorily (unless the visitor has good >eyesight and can use negative page zoom in order to see more). >They are not intended to be usable on tablets or similar, neither >can I envisage any satisfactory way of making them render satisfactorily >on such devices (nor can I envisage how to make the manuscript content >accessible to blind and partially sighted users, which I regard as >a far more important issue, and one that I would dearly love to be >able to address). > >Since I don't create sites that seek to merge these two (in other >words, my sites are quite unlike the vast majority of sites that >one experiences today), I am not convinced that the first need >to be made more mobile-friendly or that it would be possible >to make the second more mobile-friendly. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
