Re: [backstage] TEDxNorth
Registration being free and available here: http://www.tedxnorth.com/manchester09/register.php Got a preliminary programme yet Ian?:) Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, Just a quick note about the series of TEDx - http://www.ted.com/tedx events coming up this summer in the North of England. TEDx North - www.tedxnorth.com. Is a combination of 5 different TEDx events. TEDxLiverpool - 7th August 2009 TEDxLeeds - 10th September 2009 TEDxSheffield - 16th September 2009 TEDxNewcastle - 30th September 2009 TEDxManchester - 2nd October 2009 Each event will have excellent live speakers and previous TEDtalks. They promise to bring you a taste of TED without the huge cost and long waiting list. Tickets are available now and I'm happy to say the BBC's famous Studio 7 will host TEDxManchester on the 2nd October. We have room for 100's of people, so it should be one of the biggest. For you guys in the south wondering about TEDx in the south, midlands or Scotland, there was one recently - http://tedxthames.com/ and there's some upcoming ones here - http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/284 which include TEDxLondon and TEDxBirmingham So don't forget to sign up early and we'll hopefully see you soon, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] TEDxNorth
Excuse my ignorance, but what is TED? A quite look at the website tells me plenty about signing up and events going on, but nothing at all about what it is... On 20 Jul 2009, at 09:35, Alia Sheikh wrote: Registration being free and available here: http://www.tedxnorth.com/manchester09/register.php Got a preliminary programme yet Ian?:) Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, Just a quick note about the series of TEDx - http://www.ted.com/ tedx events coming up this summer in the North of England. TEDx North - www.tedxnorth.com. Is a combination of 5 different TEDx events. TEDxLiverpool - 7th August 2009 TEDxLeeds - 10th September 2009 TEDxSheffield - 16th September 2009 TEDxNewcastle - 30th September 2009 TEDxManchester - 2nd October 2009 Each event will have excellent live speakers and previous TEDtalks. They promise to bring you a taste of TED without the huge cost and long waiting list. Tickets are available now and I'm happy to say the BBC's famous Studio 7 will host TEDxManchester on the 2nd October. We have room for 100's of people, so it should be one of the biggest. For you guys in the south wondering about TEDx in the south, midlands or Scotland, there was one recently - http:// tedxthames.com/ and there's some upcoming ones here - http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/284 which include TEDxLondon and TEDxBirmingham So don't forget to sign up early and we'll hopefully see you soon, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html . Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html . Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] TEDxNorth
The TED tagline is: Riveting talks by remarkable people, free to the world So get interesting person, make them talk, film it, release. You can view previous ones on the TED site. The quality of the experience therefore depends very much on the interestingness of the speaker. eg: http://www.ted.com/talks/torsten_reil_studies_biology_to_make_animation.html Torsten Reil talks about how the study of biology can help make natural-looking animated people -- by building a human from the inside out, with bones, muscles and a nervous system. He spoke at TED in 2003; see his work now in GTA4. or http://www.ted.com/talks/olafur_eliasson_playing_with_space_and_light.html In the spectacular large-scale projects he's famous for (such as Waterfalls in New York harbor), Olafur Eliasson creates art from a palette of space, distance, color and light. This idea-packed talk begins with an experiment in the nature of perception. TEDx are local events following the same model Alex Mace wrote: Excuse my ignorance, but what is TED? A quite look at the website tells me plenty about signing up and events going on, but nothing at all about what it is... On 20 Jul 2009, at 09:35, Alia Sheikh wrote: Registration being free and available here: http://www.tedxnorth.com/manchester09/register.php Got a preliminary programme yet Ian?:) Ian Forrester wrote: Hi All, Just a quick note about the series of TEDx - http://www.ted.com/tedx events coming up this summer in the North of England. TEDx North - www.tedxnorth.com. Is a combination of 5 different TEDx events. TEDxLiverpool - 7th August 2009 TEDxLeeds - 10th September 2009 TEDxSheffield - 16th September 2009 TEDxNewcastle - 30th September 2009 TEDxManchester - 2nd October 2009 Each event will have excellent live speakers and previous TEDtalks. They promise to bring you a taste of TED without the huge cost and long waiting list. Tickets are available now and I'm happy to say the BBC's famous Studio 7 will host TEDxManchester on the 2nd October. We have room for 100's of people, so it should be one of the biggest. For you guys in the south wondering about TEDx in the south, midlands or Scotland, there was one recently - http://tedxthames.com/ and there's some upcoming ones here - http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/284 which include TEDxLondon and TEDxBirmingham So don't forget to sign up early and we'll hopefully see you soon, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
Right. After some considerable messing around, I have created a version of the WURFL system that works on the LAMP server I use. Well, I hope it does. If you have a mobile browser and a few seconds of time, can you point it to http://m.ukfree.tv to verify if your device gets recognised please? Thanks in advance... 2009/7/14 Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org Try a search for UAProf and Wurfl. The latter is prolly simplest. It is a centrally maintained file. Fetch the XML file at https://sourceforge.net/projects/wurfl/files/ regularly - and preparse - or use the sample code. It basically contains somethng like device id=nokia_generic_series90_dp20 user_agent=Nokia 90 Developer Platform 2.0 fall_back=nokia_generic_series80_dp20 group id=product_info capability name=nokia_series value=90/ capability name=nokia_edition value=1/ /group Followed by a 100 odd bits of extra info: like: group id=display capability name=max_image_width value=120/ capability name=resolution_width value=128/ capability name=resolution_height value=120/ capability name=max_image_height value=128/ /group all the way to the downright obscure. group id=streaming capability name=streaming_acodec_aac value=lc/ /group group id=deprecated capability name=streaming_video_acodec_aac value=true/ /group /device device id=uptext_generic user_agent=UP.Browser/4 fall_back=generic group id=wml_ui capability name=icons_on_menu_items_support value=true/ capability name=opwv_wml_extensions_support value=true/ capability name=built_in_back_button_support value=true/ capability name=proportional_font value=true/ capability name=wizards_recommended value=true/ capability name=softkey_support value=true/ Dw. (Who is now wondering if we should make this an even easier/'free-er' service on PAL Forge). Brian Butterworth wrote: The problem I had with Javascript before was that quite a lot of time it is disabled, and that it is usually better with mobile devices to sort all the formatting out on the server, as almost every mobile browser I know sucks. 2009/7/14 Richard Lockwood richard.lockw...@gmail.com mailto:richard.lockw...@gmail.com Maybe I've missed the point here, but: script type=text/javascript document.write(screen.width+'x'+screen.height); /script Or is that not reliable? Cheers, R. On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv mailto:briant...@freeview.tv 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 web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the 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. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
I agree with the first paragraph and then you lose me beyond that. M.whatever.com serving mobile optimised pages using good CSS 'should' work on any platform. If you want to optimise per platform then go ahead but the return is low value IMO. The only platform I'd bother with is iPhone if I was customising as the usage is significant enough for me to actually see it on our stats. Alun On 20/07/2009 11:58, Iain Wallace ikwall...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ 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 mailto:it-supp...@pentangle.co.uk 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 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
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 ikwall...@gmail.com 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
2009/7/20 Alun Rowe alun.r...@pentangle.co.uk I agree with the first paragraph and then you lose me beyond that. M.whatever.com serving mobile optimised pages using good CSS 'should' work on any platform. If you want to optimise per platform then go ahead but the return is low value IMO. The only platform I'd bother with is iPhone if I was customising as the usage is significant enough for me to actually see it on our stats. Given there are 11,233 types of phone listed in the WURFL, just developing for the phone you have (that is my assumption) is a bit short-sighted, surely? A good argument could be made that you don't get the hits, because you don't support the phones. So far the people who have hit the test are using: apple_generic apple_iphone_ver3 blackberry7730_ver1_sub400midp danger_hiptop_ver1 goodaccess_ver1_submsiepalmos google_wireless_transcoder_ver1_subua htc_magic_ver1 htc_p3700_ver1_subopera950 htc_touch_dual_ver1_subminimo lg_kp500_ver1 mot_q9h_ver1_subie711 nokia_5800d_ver1_sub210025 nokia_e71_ver1_sub1776 opera_mini_ver3_sub19903 opera_mini_ver4_sub213221 opera_mini_ver4_sub213221 opera_mini_ver4_sub213918 samsung_sgh_i900_ver1_subopera95_subua sonyericsson_k800i_ver1_subr1kg sonyericsson_x1i_ver1_subr1aa_o2 stupid_novarra_proxy tmobile_mda_varioiii_ver1 tmobile_sda_ver1_sub10 tmobile_sda_ver1_sub10 upg1_ver1_subblazer40 upg1_ver_1_subblazer43do50448 usha_lexus_888b_ver1 Alun On 20/07/2009 11:58, Iain Wallace ikwall...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ 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 mailto:it-supp...@pentangle.co.uk 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 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
If this is specifically designed for mobile, e.g. m.facebook.com or 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 compared with: 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 ikwall...@gmail.com 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
On 7/20/09, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: If you have a mobile browser and a few seconds of time, can you point it to http://m.ukfree.tv to verify if your device gets recognised please? Works on my Nokia E65: nokia_e65_ver1 device capabilities Width 229, height 210, colours 16777216.JPEG supported. GIF supported. :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
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/or http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/index.html or http://m.twitter.com http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/index.htmlI 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 ikwall...@gmail.com If this is specifically designed for mobile, e.g. m.facebook.com or 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 compared with: 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 ikwall...@gmail.com 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 briant...@freeview.tv 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 web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
We support phones usually through m.domain where the customer pays us to write a specific version otherwise we'd consider graceful degredation to be enough to support the majority of Phones. Writing a mobile version is usually about delivering a significantly stripped and optimised version rather than a different stylesheet. This is always our preffered option. A well thought out mobile design WILL work across the majority of phones. Browser sniffing, res sniffing etc are all things that I hoped had died a long time ago. In the case of mobile versions the simplification of the site 'should' lead to an easy to adapt/degrade 'design' which will work in most browsers. Yes I do own an iPhone but the key word was 'significant'. My feeling is that if the facebooks etc of the world are doing an iPhone specific version then it's likely that platform offers a worthwhile ROI. The user base 'might' be different in your app but If it is then doubt there is any one platform/browser combination that significantly appears head and shoulders above the others. It's also important to note that the iPhone offers a higher level of navigational control than it's competitors (excluding the latest android phones which I haven't had a chance to test yet) therefore it is possible to treat it as an interesting middle ground between traditional desktop and traditional mobile experience. Alun On 20 Jul 2009, at 15:57, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: 2009/7/20 Alun Rowe alun.r...@pentangle.co.uk I agree with the first paragraph and then you lose me beyond that. M.whatever.com serving mobile optimised pages using good CSS 'should' work on any platform. If you want to optimise per platform then go ahead but the return is low value IMO. The only platform I'd bother with is iPhone if I was customising as the usage is significant enough for me to actually see it on our stats. Given there are 11,233 types of phone listed in the WURFL, just developing for the phone you have (that is my assumption) is a bit short-sighted, surely? A good argument could be made that you don't get the hits, because you don't support the phones. So far the people who have hit the test are using: apple_generic apple_iphone_ver3 blackberry7730_ver1_sub400midp danger_hiptop_ver1 goodaccess_ver1_submsiepalmos google_wireless_transcoder_ver1_subua htc_magic_ver1 htc_p3700_ver1_subopera950 htc_touch_dual_ver1_subminimo lg_kp500_ver1 mot_q9h_ver1_subie711 nokia_5800d_ver1_sub210025 nokia_e71_ver1_sub1776 opera_mini_ver3_sub19903 opera_mini_ver4_sub213221 opera_mini_ver4_sub213221 opera_mini_ver4_sub213918 samsung_sgh_i900_ver1_subopera95_subua sonyericsson_k800i_ver1_subr1kg sonyericsson_x1i_ver1_subr1aa_o2 stupid_novarra_proxy tmobile_mda_varioiii_ver1 tmobile_sda_ver1_sub10 tmobile_sda_ver1_sub10 upg1_ver1_subblazer40 upg1_ver_1_subblazer43do50448 usha_lexus_888b_ver1 Alun On 20/07/2009 11:58, Iain Wallace ikwall...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ 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
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
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 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? Alun On 20 Jul 2009, at 18:48, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv 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/ or http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/index.html or http://m.twitter.com 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 ikwall...@gmail.com If this is specifically designed for mobile, e.g. m.facebook.com or 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 compared with: 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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 ikwall...@gmail.com 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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv 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
Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide
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 alun.r...@pentangle.co.uk 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 briant...@freeview.tv 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.comhttp://m.twitter.com http://www.bbc.co.uk/mobile/index.htmlI 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 ikwall...@gmail.comikwall...@gmail.com If this is specifically designed for mobile, e.g. http://m.facebook.com m.facebook.com or http://x.facebook.comx.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 Butterworthbriant...@freeview.tv briant...@freeview.tv 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 ikwall...@gmail.comikwall...@gmail.com Trying to match
