Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Iain Wallace]

Forgot to actually look at this. Looks fine on my G1. One minor
interesting thing I have noticed though is I think due to the G1's
browser and how it treats caching. I accessed the page in portrait and
it looked fine, then rotated to landscape without reloading, which
made a few things in the layout go vaguely wrong, then I refreshed in
landscape mode and it still reported portrait mode at the bottom. Not
sure if that's relevant but I thought I'd mention it. Love the
graphical representation of resolutions - very interesting.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Brian
Butterworth wrote:
> 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...
>

-
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

[Brian Butterworth]

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 

>
>   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"  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
>
>  
>
> 2009/7/20 Brian Butterworth 
>
> Another good mobile site is wikipedia's...
>
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Felt_Like_A_Kiss
>  
> 2009/7/20 Alun Rowe 
>
>
> 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" 
> 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 inter

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Alun Rowe]

 
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"  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
> 
>  
> 
> 2009/7/20 Brian Butterworth 
>> Another good mobile site is wikipedia's...
>> 
>> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Felt_Like_A_Kiss
>>  
>> 2009/7/20 Alun Rowe 
>> 
>>>   
>>> 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" 
 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 inte

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Alun Rowe]

Quoting jakob isn't going to help you here.

There are plenty of mobile friendly sites out there and working with a  
half decent agency will get you the results you require.


Ask the question 'what do you want?' to your users and Start there.

Alun

On 20 Jul 2009, at 21:35, "Brian Butterworth"   
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



2009/7/20 Brian Butterworth 
Another good mobile site is wikipedia's...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Felt_Like_A_Kiss

2009/7/20 Alun Rowe 



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"  
 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 
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 Butterworth> 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, bu

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Matt Barber]

Hey Brian,

Just hit with Nokia 3109c with default browser on Proximus network.
Worked without any provider supplied iFrames and gave me 121x110,
262144 colours, qwerty, jpeg and GIF supported.
No image loaded anywhere on the page, there was a black X at the
bottom, and a small '0' on the bottom left.

Hope that assists!

Matt
-
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

[Brian Butterworth]

"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


2009/7/20 Brian Butterworth 

> Another good mobile site is wikipedia's...
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Felt_Like_A_Kiss
> 
> 2009/7/20 Alun Rowe 
>
>>
>>  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" 
>> 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 

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Brian Butterworth]

Another good mobile site is wikipedia's...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Felt_Like_A_Kiss

2009/7/20 Alun Rowe 

>
>  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" 
> 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 Butterworth<
>> 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 o

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Alun Rowe]

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"   
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 
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 Butterworth> 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 
>>
>> 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>

>> 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

>> >

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Alun Rowe]

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"   
wrote:





2009/7/20 Alun Rowe 

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"  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 Butterworth>

> 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

> yo

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Brian Butterworth]

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 

> 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 Butterworth
> 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 
> >>
> >> 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
> >> > switchov

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Ciaran Hamilton]

On 7/20/09, Brian Butterworth  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 Wallace]

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 Butterworth 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 
>>
>> 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
>> 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

[Brian Butterworth]

2009/7/20 Alun Rowe 

>
> 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"  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 Butterworth >
> > 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 

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Brian Butterworth]

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 

> 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
> 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

[Alun Rowe]

 
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"  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 Butterworth
> 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

[Iain Wallace]

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 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

[Brian Butterworth]

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 

> 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
>
>  
>
>  
>  
>
>
> Followed by a 100 odd bits of extra info: like:
>
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
> all the way to the downright obscure.
>
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>  
>  
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
> 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 > >
>>
>>Maybe I've missed the point here, but:
>>
>>
>>document.write(screen.width+'x'+screen.height);
>>
>>
>>Or is that not reliable?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>R.
>>
>>On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian
>>Butterworthmailto: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
>>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

[Brian Butterworth]

Hi,
The only problem I have with the wurfl.sourceforge.net system is that the
server I pay for has a memory limit ("Allowed memory size of 68157440 bytes
exhausted") and I can't unpack the XML file to the cache.

But an online service would be great for mobile sites.

There could be several ways to do this, but I would imagine that a 200ms
delay in the response would encourage the response to be stuck in a $SESSION
or cookie.

Low-level PHP could just be $x=file_get_contents("http://xxx.com/detect?"; .
$_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT']);



2009/7/14 Dirk-Willem van Gulik 

>  Brian Butterworth wrote:
>
> 2009/7/14 Dirk-Willem van Gulik 
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> (Who is now wondering if we should make this an even easier/'free-er'
>> service on PAL & Forge).
>
>
>  That will be me.
>
> Feel free to have  a chat with me (or Lars, or Graham) for inspiration as
> to how we could do something at a very low PHP or Apache layer (e.g. with a
> bit of berkelydb, annotation moduling or memcache) - as to make the cost
> incredibly low (i.e. so you can do it on any request - and have little need
> to copy it in your session profile).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dw
>



-- 

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

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik]

Brian Butterworth wrote:
2009/7/14 Dirk-Willem van Gulik >


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.


(Who is now wondering if we should make this an even
easier/'free-er' service on PAL & Forge).


That will be me.
Feel free to have  a chat with me (or Lars, or Graham) for inspiration 
as to how we could do something at a very low PHP or Apache layer (e.g. 
with a bit of berkelydb, annotation moduling or memcache) - as to make 
the cost incredibly low (i.e. so you can do it on any request - and have 
little need to copy it in your session profile).


Thanks,

Dw

Re: [backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Brian Butterworth]

2009/7/14 Dirk-Willem van Gulik 

> 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.
>
>
> (Who is now wondering if we should make this an even easier/'free-er'
> service on PAL & Forge).


That will be me.


>
>
> 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 > >
>>
>>Maybe I've missed the point here, but:
>>
>>
>>document.write(screen.width+'x'+screen.height);
>>
>>
>>Or is that not reliable?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>R.
>>
>>On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian
>>Butterworthmailto: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
>>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

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik]

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

 


  
  


Followed by a 100 odd bits of extra info: like:


  
  
  
  


all the way to the downright obscure.


  


  

  
  fall_back="generic">


  
  
  
  
  
  

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 mailto:richard.lockw...@gmail.com>>

Maybe I've missed the point here, but:


document.write(screen.width+'x'+screen.height);


Or is that not reliable?

Cheers,

R.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian
Butterworthmailto: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
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

[Brian Butterworth]

Tom
Thanks. That very much looks like the one.


2009/7/14 Tom Hannen 

> http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian Butterworth
> 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

[Brian Butterworth]

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 

> Maybe I've missed the point here, but:
>
> 
> document.write(screen.width+'x'+screen.height);
> 
>
> Or is that not reliable?
>
> Cheers,
>
> R.
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian Butterworth
> 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

[Tom Hannen]

http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian Butterworth 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

[Richard Lockwood]

Maybe I've missed the point here, but:


document.write(screen.width+'x'+screen.height);


Or is that not reliable?

Cheers,

R.

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Brian Butterworth 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

[Alun Rowe]

 
http://blueflavor.com/blog/2006/jul/21/designing-for-mobile/ + seaqrch for
Brian Fling + Mobile for lots of extra info.

Also SimpleBit¹s Dan Cederholm has done a bunch of googlable mobile stuff.


On 14/07/2009 15:09, "Brian Butterworth"  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
> 
>   
> 
> 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

[backstage] Mobile sites - how wide

[Brian Butterworth]

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