Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
Incase it hasn't come up yet the reason for doing this is pretty straight forward. You might want to serve up the same content but with a BIG reduction in the amount of markup used and smaller image files. Bandwidth costs money on a mobile and your users will appreciate the reduced costs and download times when browsing your site. Having said that it's only really an issue for content and markup heavy sites such as facebook. Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Matthew Pennell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Andrew Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't see what difference it makes - if someone chooses to create a mobile-device-friendly version of their site and publish it under a separate URL (as opposed to the elegant way - that is, using a mobile-device-friendly stylesheet) then that is probably their business. I know it's not what Lars meant, but I just have to challenge the notion that the elegant (and presumably proper) way to serve mobile devices is with a mobile stylesheet on your regular site. Mobile web use is all about context - visitors don't need your entire site, they need a subset of it (or new content) that is useful for them in the context of use on the go. To that end, you either sniff for devices and/or serve mobile content on a different URL. Matt, without seeming to be starting an argument, have you ever designed for mobile devices? I have done so twice, and both times, it was important to the clients (both in government) that the content was the same for large format and mobile users. Both had specific reasons for doing so, and in both cases there was the potential for serious consequences if less than the full story was given. Happy to discuss. Cheers, Andrew --- Andrew Boyd http://onblogging.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
Slightly off topic... There is a really good Wordpress template/plugin that detects the very specific user-agent for iphone and touch and changes your theme to an iphone specific layout. Sure, it's arguable if you should design for a particular appliance. However, they've done the work for you and it works great, although a bit generic in look and feel. You can always make adjustments to the theme for personalization. Ted www.last-child.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keryx Web Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:44 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url I am feeling moody today, but... Are we selling our soul for a shiny newish toy from Apple? A specific app or device should not be part of an URL. Period. URL's like iphone.domain.com are an abomination! Even if the content is standards based. Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
Ted Drake skrev: Slightly off topic... There is a really good Wordpress template/plugin that detects the very specific user-agent for iphone and touch and changes your theme to an iphone specific layout. There is a plethora of such solutions covering most major PHP-frameworks, RoR, etc. That is the really scaring part! However, I suspected that most people on this list would stay away from that solution. I thought that on this list that would be well understood by now. Then I saw that even so called standrads aware developers started to use iphone as part of the URL instead, which IMO is perheps less evil. But only by a few degrees. Sure, it's arguable if you should design for a particular appliance. However, they've done the work for you and it works great, although a bit generic in look and feel. You can always make adjustments to the theme for personalization. No it is not arguable. Within the web standards aware community this argument has been settled! Come on people. Can't you see that this is *EXACTLY* the arguments ´that were used in 1998 when people forked their code for MSIE and Netscape? It worked. It really did. In the short term. Developing with the iPhone in mind (not for the iPhone) really should mean nothing else than what it means to develop with e.g. Firefox 3.0 or Opera 9.5 in mind. You can take advantage of the advanced features, if you use them as progressive enhancement and capability test for them. The only hard question is how you deal with what's *lacking* in the iPhone: A cursor and a pointer! Ohh, it's from Apple, it's shiny, it has no buttons - what is 10 years of hard fought struggle for web standards worth in that perspective? Zilch. It seems. Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
On 21 Jul 2008, at 01:24, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: let's not forget that the iPhone's browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser, Not true. Opera Mini has more active users per week than iPhones that exist on the market. http://blogs.computerworld.com/iphone_users_search_google_5000 : The Financial Times talked to Google at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona and found some interesting figures. iPhone users do an average of 50 times more Google searches than their nearest competitor. not wanting to turn this into a popularity contest (this is about writing device and browser specific sites vs writing for the open web), don't believe all the statistics you read. Google may say that, but there is one major flaw. Opera Mini, didn't, at that time of writing, use Google is its search engine. We had a deal with Yahoo at that time. Obviously a device with Google is its default search engine would give them far more traffic. Today we use Google, except for our most popular markets (Former soviet states), where we use Yandex. You'll find Opera Mini is hugely popular on Yandex. I've a company wide NDA with Google, so can't say anything about how any stats may have changed since we changed to Google as the default search engine in Opera Mini and Mobile. Many stats are also heavily US centric. http://localmobilesearch.net/?p=513 : Roughly 85% of iPhone users access news and information and 59% search on their devices. That compares with 13% and 6% in the broader market. ... Again not true. Take the HTC Touch Diamond. It has both a superior screen resolution, and similar hardware specs, and a full HTML browser (Opera Mobile 9.5) with arguably greater standards compliance. Cannot tell about the mobile versions, but from what I see going on with Webkit it is ahead of all other engines. In what ways? I represent web developers in our roadmap discussions on what goes into our Core rendering engine. As far as I can see Core-2.1 is on par or above other rendering engines in many areas, from DOM 3, HTML5, CSS3, SVG etc. We lack some of the more eye candy aspects of CSS3 (such as border-radius and multiple background images), which is something I'd like to remedy in future versions, but are ahead in other areas of CSS3 (Full selectors support, dynamic media queries, generated content on any element, SVG as background- image etc.) They do also have some experimental none standard stuff that they invented (that it is perfectly possible to do with SVG in Opera) that we don't have as they invented it, and Opera generally makes experimental builds for these types of new features, instead of putting them into a full release build (vendor specific features harm the open web). I'm not sure if mobile safari has these things included however. If there is anything you see that Opera is lacking that is useful for web developers then do let me know. I'll do my best to analyse it and see if it can be added to the road map. And unlike Mini it has a full JavaScript implementation. And let's see what's going on with JavaScript on iPhone: http://daringfireball.net/2008/07/webkit_performance_iphone I'm not sure what that proves. iPhone wasn't tested against any other browser. Mobile Safari can't ever be tested fairly for performance against other browsers as there are no other browsers on iPhone. I think it may be against the agreement to make iPhone apps that anything with a JavaScript engine can't be made for iPhone without breaking the terms of agreement. We do have videos of Opera Mini on a low end phone destroying the iPhone in performance (the original). This is unfair of course as Opera Mini compresses the page to get a big performance boost. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** David Storey Chief Web Opener, Product Manager Opera Dragonfly, Consumer Product Manager Opera Core, Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group member Consumer Product Management Developer Relations Opera Software ASA Oslo, Norway Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://my.opera.com/dstorey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
It's just a name branding exercise... having an iphone in your domain, e.g as a subdomain has more to do with marketing efforts and user identification (I've got an iphone and I want to use it on something) than it does with the code it actually presents. Look under the hood at iphone.news.com.au and you'll see it presents HTML, JS and CSS that works in any browser. I browse it on my desktop because it presents information quicker than the main news site. News could quite easily have shown it under the mobile.news.com.au subdomain but do you think that their marketing bods would have gotten the exposure/revenue they wanted ? As long as the code served is device agnostic, you can serve it out from one or more domains of any choosing... Cheers J On Monday 21 July 2008 19:14:14 Keryx Web wrote: Ted Drake skrev: Slightly off topic... There is a really good Wordpress template/plugin that detects the very specific user-agent for iphone and touch and changes your theme to an iphone specific layout. There is a plethora of such solutions covering most major PHP-frameworks, RoR, etc. That is the really scaring part! However, I suspected that most people on this list would stay away from that solution. I thought that on this list that would be well understood by now. Then I saw that even so called standrads aware developers started to use iphone as part of the URL instead, which IMO is perheps less evil. But only by a few degrees. Sure, it's arguable if you should design for a particular appliance. However, they've done the work for you and it works great, although a bit generic in look and feel. You can always make adjustments to the theme for personalization. No it is not arguable. Within the web standards aware community this argument has been settled! Come on people. Can't you see that this is *EXACTLY* the arguments ´that were used in 1998 when people forked their code for MSIE and Netscape? It worked. It really did. In the short term. Developing with the iPhone in mind (not for the iPhone) really should mean nothing else than what it means to develop with e.g. Firefox 3.0 or Opera 9.5 in mind. You can take advantage of the advanced features, if you use them as progressive enhancement and capability test for them. The only hard question is how you deal with what's *lacking* in the iPhone: A cursor and a pointer! Ohh, it's from Apple, it's shiny, it has no buttons - what is 10 years of hard fought struggle for web standards worth in that perspective? Zilch. It seems. Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Andrew Boyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't see what difference it makes - if someone chooses to create a mobile-device-friendly version of their site and publish it under a separate URL (as opposed to the elegant way - that is, using a mobile-device-friendly stylesheet) then that is probably their business. I know it's not what Lars meant, but I just have to challenge the notion that the elegant (and presumably proper) way to serve mobile devices is with a mobile stylesheet on your regular site. Mobile web use is all about context - visitors don't need your entire site, they need a subset of it (or new content) that is useful for them in the context of use on the go. To that end, you either sniff for devices and/or serve mobile content on a different URL. -- - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
Matthew Pennell skrev: To that end, you either sniff for devices and/or serve mobile content on a different URL. Yes, but if iphone is part of your URL, what does that say to people using Nokia, Sony-E, LG or any other smartphone? And what about Opera Mini, Opera Mobile, MSIE Mobile (OK forget that one) and Fennec? Designing - with reduced content - for small screens? Yes! Take into consideration that Safari on the iPhone lacks a cursor (you can't even select text, I've been told!) and a pointer (which is a feature, not a bug...) Yes. Designing for specific devices - including naming your URL? No! Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
I see where you're coming from, but let's not forget that the iPhone's browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser, in the fashion, that it is basically the same browser you get on your computer. That means that you can create pages a bit differently for the iPhone, in contrast to other devices. However, that being said, I still agree with you. I'd prefer a more ambiguous term, e.g. old-mobile.domain.com and new-mobile.domain.com. Or maybe something technical specific. Then use iphone.domain.com to redirect there or something. Regards, Svip 2008/7/20 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Matthew Pennell skrev: To that end, you either sniff for devices and/or serve mobile content on a different URL. Yes, but if iphone is part of your URL, what does that say to people using Nokia, Sony-E, LG or any other smartphone? And what about Opera Mini, Opera Mobile, MSIE Mobile (OK forget that one) and Fennec? Designing - with reduced content - for small screens? Yes! Take into consideration that Safari on the iPhone lacks a cursor (you can't even select text, I've been told!) and a pointer (which is a feature, not a bug...) Yes. Designing for specific devices - including naming your URL? No! Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
Svip skrev: I see where you're coming from, but let's not forget that the iPhone's browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser, in the fashion, that it is basically the same browser you get on your computer. The good thing about the iPhone is that suddenly USA is getting to know the mobile web. The bad thing is that USA seems to believe that the mobile web = iPhone. In Scandinavia, where I live, most people are *not* that impressed with the iPhone, nor is it the largest mobile browser. We have been surfing the web on our 3G phones for quite some time now. But we welcome all (US) Americans to the 21st century! Lars Gunther (who probably will get himself a Nokia N96 when it comes out, and even today would take an N95 over the iPhone) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
When I say the largest mobile browser, I mean the browser that can handle more content and layouts on a mobile device than any other. I have seen plenty of mobile phone browsers. I admit Opera Mini is great, but the Safari on the iPhone does give you the full experience as you would on your laptop/desktop. Now, personally, I don't mind sites specifically for mobile devices, cause they are lower in content, which is something you'd like on a mobile device, due to the limitations of the screen and the cost of transfer. But while I realise that 3G is limited in the US, there is no place yet where the mobile device industry is developed enough to allow for full blown websites on mobile devices. Which I believe is Apple taking a step too early. Regards, Svip P.S. I live in Denmark. 2008/7/20 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Svip skrev: I see where you're coming from, but let's not forget that the iPhone's browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser, in the fashion, that it is basically the same browser you get on your computer. The good thing about the iPhone is that suddenly USA is getting to know the mobile web. The bad thing is that USA seems to believe that the mobile web = iPhone. In Scandinavia, where I live, most people are *not* that impressed with the iPhone, nor is it the largest mobile browser. We have been surfing the web on our 3G phones for quite some time now. But we welcome all (US) Americans to the 21st century! Lars Gunther (who probably will get himself a Nokia N96 when it comes out, and even today would take an N95 over the iPhone) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
I don't personally have a problem with having iphone in a URL as it is generally used for applications that are very specific to the iphone. Yes, perhaps there should be versions for other devices (e.g. Nokia) but the reality is that most developers won't bother making specific sites for these users and instead use a generic mobile stylesheet. The difference with the iPhone is that it's the latest bandwagon in town and that the majority of iPhone owners will use the internet on the phone (whereas the majority of Nokia phone owners won't use the web browser on the phone). It also has a very specific style and so companies will try and cater to this (e.g. the facebook web app was designed to look like a native iPhone application). Of course, now there is the App store and the ability to run third party applications, I'm sure a lot of these iPhone specific websites will disappear as the developers move to offering a built in solution. Ben -- e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://bendodson.com/ On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Svip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I say the largest mobile browser, I mean the browser that can handle more content and layouts on a mobile device than any other. I have seen plenty of mobile phone browsers. I admit Opera Mini is great, but the Safari on the iPhone does give you the full experience as you would on your laptop/desktop. Now, personally, I don't mind sites specifically for mobile devices, cause they are lower in content, which is something you'd like on a mobile device, due to the limitations of the screen and the cost of transfer. But while I realise that 3G is limited in the US, there is no place yet where the mobile device industry is developed enough to allow for full blown websites on mobile devices. Which I believe is Apple taking a step too early. Regards, Svip P.S. I live in Denmark. 2008/7/20 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Svip skrev: I see where you're coming from, but let's not forget that the iPhone's browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser, in the fashion, that it is basically the same browser you get on your computer. The good thing about the iPhone is that suddenly USA is getting to know the mobile web. The bad thing is that USA seems to believe that the mobile web = iPhone. In Scandinavia, where I live, most people are *not* that impressed with the iPhone, nor is it the largest mobile browser. We have been surfing the web on our 3G phones for quite some time now. But we welcome all (US) Americans to the 21st century! Lars Gunther (who probably will get himself a Nokia N96 when it comes out, and even today would take an N95 over the iPhone) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
Ben Dodson skrev: I don't personally have a problem with having iphone in a URL as it is generally used for applications that are very specific to the iphone. It is 1998 and I am developing an application that is very specific to MSIE... A strategy proved bad! IMO this is *exactly* the reasoning that J. Zeldman, Steve Champeon et al protested against. A protest that started and defined the web standards movement. Yes, perhaps there should be versions for other devices (e.g. Nokia) but the reality is that most developers won't bother making specific sites for these users and instead use a generic mobile stylesheet. No there should not be versions for Nokias or Sony-E's or LG's or any other device. What we perhaps need, though, is a graded browser support chart, like Yahoo has for desktop apps. The difference with the iPhone is that it's the latest bandwagon in town and that the majority of iPhone owners will use the internet on the phone (whereas the majority of Nokia phone owners won't use the web browser on the phone). The difference is that Nokia et al makes several different kinds of phones, not all are smartphones. Every single smartphone owner I know uses the web browser on the phone and has been doing it for quite a few years. It is great that the iPhone has made people aware of the mobile web, and lowered the threshold for some to use it. But as developers we should not care about the present, but the present and the future! Locking ourselves in to one device is not a strategy for the future, even if iPhone shows up as the leading mobile device in usage stats today. Remember, there once was a time when MSIE was so dominant that as a web developer it made sense in many ways to develop MSIE only web sites! It also has a very specific style and so companies will try and cater to this (e.g. the facebook web app was designed to look like a native iPhone application). That I predict is a fad that will quickly go away. Site owners will soon see the benefits of designing for the brand of the website, rather than the brand of the device it is accessed from. Of course, now there is the App store and the ability to run third party applications, I'm sure a lot of these iPhone specific websites will disappear as the developers move to offering a built in solution. Hopefully you are right. Off topic: The fact that people will jubilantly welcome a solution that means they are getting locked in to a single vendor is also beyond my understanding... And I am not a Mac hater. I use Macs (as well as Windows and Linux) and listen with delight to my iPod. Lars Gunter *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
Lars, I think you're forgetting an important thing though. The iPhone's Safari is very different from Safari on an iMac or Opera Mini on another mobile 3G device. Point is, while Apple will tell you the Safari on the iPhone is like the Safari you get on your iMac or MacBook, it is still limited by the small screen. So while it still is kilometres ahead of the other devices as to what its browser can deliver, it is still a completely different experience than that of Safari on the computer. Therefore, I think it is not that silly to name there be currently 2 common devices to interact with a website from, and the mobile category has a subcategory of the advance level browsing that is the iPhone's Safari. But... let's not forget that sometimes developing apps for specific browsers is done purely by the intention of abilities this browser applies. On several projects I don't care if it doesn't work in anything else but Firefox. Regards Svip 2008/7/20 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ben Dodson skrev: I don't personally have a problem with having iphone in a URL as it is generally used for applications that are very specific to the iphone. It is 1998 and I am developing an application that is very specific to MSIE... A strategy proved bad! IMO this is *exactly* the reasoning that J. Zeldman, Steve Champeon et al protested against. A protest that started and defined the web standards movement. Yes, perhaps there should be versions for other devices (e.g. Nokia) but the reality is that most developers won't bother making specific sites for these users and instead use a generic mobile stylesheet. No there should not be versions for Nokias or Sony-E's or LG's or any other device. What we perhaps need, though, is a graded browser support chart, like Yahoo has for desktop apps. The difference with the iPhone is that it's the latest bandwagon in town and that the majority of iPhone owners will use the internet on the phone (whereas the majority of Nokia phone owners won't use the web browser on the phone). The difference is that Nokia et al makes several different kinds of phones, not all are smartphones. Every single smartphone owner I know uses the web browser on the phone and has been doing it for quite a few years. It is great that the iPhone has made people aware of the mobile web, and lowered the threshold for some to use it. But as developers we should not care about the present, but the present and the future! Locking ourselves in to one device is not a strategy for the future, even if iPhone shows up as the leading mobile device in usage stats today. Remember, there once was a time when MSIE was so dominant that as a web developer it made sense in many ways to develop MSIE only web sites! It also has a very specific style and so companies will try and cater to this (e.g. the facebook web app was designed to look like a native iPhone application). That I predict is a fad that will quickly go away. Site owners will soon see the benefits of designing for the brand of the website, rather than the brand of the device it is accessed from. Of course, now there is the App store and the ability to run third party applications, I'm sure a lot of these iPhone specific websites will disappear as the developers move to offering a built in solution. Hopefully you are right. Off topic: The fact that people will jubilantly welcome a solution that means they are getting locked in to a single vendor is also beyond my understanding... And I am not a Mac hater. I use Macs (as well as Windows and Linux) and listen with delight to my iPod. Lars Gunter *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
This is incredibly short sighted. Comments inline, plus one comment to an earlier mail: let's not forget that the iPhone's browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser, Not true. Opera Mini has more active users per week than iPhones that exist on the market. Apple may have superior marketing, get a lot of free advertising and are beloved by developers (I myself use a Mac and own a iPod), but they are not the number one mobile browser. They may be one day due to some of the things mentioned above, along with the iPhone being a great piece of hardware and software, but not currently, and Opera Mini continues to rise at a very healthy rate. On 20 Jul 2008, at 17:38, Svip wrote: Lars, I think you're forgetting an important thing though. The iPhone's Safari is very different from Safari on an iMac or Opera Mini on another mobile 3G device. Point is, while Apple will tell you the Safari on the iPhone is like the Safari you get on your iMac or MacBook, it is still limited by the small screen. So while it still is kilometres ahead of the other devices as to what its browser can deliver, it is still a completely different experience than that of Safari on the computer. Again not true. Take the HTC Touch Diamond. It has both a superior screen resolution, and similar hardware specs, and a full HTML browser (Opera Mobile 9.5) with arguably greater standards compliance. Opera Mobile 9.5 has basically the same rendering engine as Opera 9.5 on desktop. Opera has been developing mobile browsers for years, and has a lot of that know how in the current generation of the browser. And unlike Mini it has a full JavaScript implementation. Therefore, I think it is not that silly to name there be currently 2 common devices to interact with a website from, and the mobile category has a subcategory of the advance level browsing that is the iPhone's Safari. That would be short sighed to do that, like saying one should give a more advanced version of a site to IE in ye olde days. As well as the Diamond I mentioned before, there is an entire class of devices that have similar to better specs than the iPhone that can run a similar to more advanced web browser. Samsung i900 is another example that Opera Mobile 9.5 is running on with the same touch screen style form factor and post 500mhz processor. Ignoring Windows Mobile that 9.5 currently runs on, there is S60, such as the N96 which runs another WebKit browser with the same engine as mobile safari. Ignoring mobile all together, what about things like games consoles? The Nintendo Wii browser was very popular for Opera. There could be any hit portable (or not portable) device that could come out at any time, with a first class browser and user experience. Designing just for iphone misses out on that opportunity. It is fantastic for lock in though (look what mess that has got us in on the regular desktop web - just ask the IE team and all the issues they are having trying not to break content aimed for their legacy browser versions). But... let's not forget that sometimes developing apps for specific browsers is done purely by the intention of abilities this browser applies. On several projects I don't care if it doesn't work in anything else but Firefox. Says it all really... Regards Svip 2008/7/20 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ben Dodson skrev: I don't personally have a problem with having iphone in a URL as it is generally used for applications that are very specific to the iphone. It is 1998 and I am developing an application that is very specific to MSIE... A strategy proved bad! IMO this is *exactly* the reasoning that J. Zeldman, Steve Champeon et al protested against. A protest that started and defined the web standards movement. Yes, perhaps there should be versions for other devices (e.g. Nokia) but the reality is that most developers won't bother making specific sites for these users and instead use a generic mobile stylesheet. No there should not be versions for Nokias or Sony-E's or LG's or any other device. What we perhaps need, though, is a graded browser support chart, like Yahoo has for desktop apps. The difference with the iPhone is that it's the latest bandwagon in town and that the majority of iPhone owners will use the internet on the phone (whereas the majority of Nokia phone owners won't use the web browser on the phone). The difference is that Nokia et al makes several different kinds of phones, not all are smartphones. Every single smartphone owner I know uses the web browser on the phone and has been doing it for quite a few years. It is great that the iPhone has made people aware of the mobile web, and lowered the threshold for some to use it. But as developers we should not care about the present, but the present and the future! Locking ourselves in to one device is not a strategy for the future,
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
2008/7/20 David Storey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is incredibly short sighted. Comments inline, plus one comment to an earlier mail: let's not forget that the iPhone's browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser, Not true. Opera Mini has more active users per week than iPhones that exist on the market. Apple may have superior marketing, get a lot of free advertising and are beloved by developers (I myself use a Mac and own a iPod), but they are not the number one mobile browser. They may be one day due to some of the things mentioned above, along with the iPhone being a great piece of hardware and software, but not currently, and Opera Mini continues to rise at a very healthy rate. You misunderstood me, by larger I was not referring to user base, I was referring to the display content. Opera Mini does not give the same amount of full blown content as the iPhone's Safari browser does. Not that I care about that, cause I don't think I'd need that on a mobile device yet. On 20 Jul 2008, at 17:38, Svip wrote: Lars, I think you're forgetting an important thing though. The iPhone's Safari is very different from Safari on an iMac or Opera Mini on another mobile 3G device. Point is, while Apple will tell you the Safari on the iPhone is like the Safari you get on your iMac or MacBook, it is still limited by the small screen. So while it still is kilometres ahead of the other devices as to what its browser can deliver, it is still a completely different experience than that of Safari on the computer. Again not true. Take the HTC Touch Diamond. It has both a superior screen resolution, and similar hardware specs, and a full HTML browser (Opera Mobile 9.5) with arguably greater standards compliance. Opera Mobile 9.5 has basically the same rendering engine as Opera 9.5 on desktop. Opera has been developing mobile browsers for years, and has a lot of that know how in the current generation of the browser. And unlike Mini it has a full JavaScript implementation. I was not aware of Opera Mobile, so I admit I was uniformed. Therefore, I think it is not that silly to name there be currently 2 common devices to interact with a website from, and the mobile category has a subcategory of the advance level browsing that is the iPhone's Safari. That would be short sighed to do that, like saying one should give a more advanced version of a site to IE in ye olde days. As well as the Diamond I mentioned before, there is an entire class of devices that have similar to better specs than the iPhone that can run a similar to more advanced web browser. Samsung i900 is another example that Opera Mobile 9.5 is running on with the same touch screen style form factor and post 500mhz processor. Ignoring Windows Mobile that 9.5 currently runs on, there is S60, such as the N96 which runs another WebKit browser with the same engine as mobile safari. Ignoring mobile all together, what about things like games consoles? The Nintendo Wii browser was very popular for Opera. There could be any hit portable (or not portable) device that could come out at any time, with a first class browser and user experience. Designing just for iphone misses out on that opportunity. It is fantastic for lock in though (look what mess that has got us in on the regular desktop web - just ask the IE team and all the issues they are having trying not to break content aimed for their legacy browser versions). I actually have to agree with that. But... let's not forget that sometimes developing apps for specific browsers is done purely by the intention of abilities this browser applies. On several projects I don't care if it doesn't work in anything else but Firefox. Says it all really... You've never heard about having fun? I don't make useful applications for the web. Regards Svip 2008/7/20 Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ben Dodson skrev: I don't personally have a problem with having iphone in a URL as it is generally used for applications that are very specific to the iphone. It is 1998 and I am developing an application that is very specific to MSIE... A strategy proved bad! IMO this is *exactly* the reasoning that J. Zeldman, Steve Champeon et al protested against. A protest that started and defined the web standards movement. Yes, perhaps there should be versions for other devices (e.g. Nokia) but the reality is that most developers won't bother making specific sites for these users and instead use a generic mobile stylesheet. No there should not be versions for Nokias or Sony-E's or LG's or any other device. What we perhaps need, though, is a graded browser support chart, like Yahoo has for desktop apps. The difference with the iPhone is that it's the latest bandwagon in town and that the majority of iPhone owners will use the internet on the phone (whereas the majority of Nokia phone owners won't use the web browser on the phone).
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
let's not forget that the iPhone's browser is (as of right now) the largest mobile browser, Not true. Opera Mini has more active users per week than iPhones that exist on the market. http://blogs.computerworld.com/iphone_users_search_google_5000 : The Financial Times talked to Google at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona and found some interesting figures. iPhone users do an average of 50 times more Google searches than their nearest competitor. http://localmobilesearch.net/?p=513 : Roughly 85% of iPhone users access news and information and 59% search on their devices. That compares with 13% and 6% in the broader market. ... Again not true. Take the HTC Touch Diamond. It has both a superior screen resolution, and similar hardware specs, and a full HTML browser (Opera Mobile 9.5) with arguably greater standards compliance. Cannot tell about the mobile versions, but from what I see going on with Webkit it is ahead of all other engines. And unlike Mini it has a full JavaScript implementation. And let's see what's going on with JavaScript on iPhone: http://daringfireball.net/2008/07/webkit_performance_iphone Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] iphone should not be part of your url
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Keryx Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am feeling moody today, but... Are we selling our soul for a shiny newish toy from Apple? A specific app or device should not be part of an URL. Period. URL's like iphone.domain.com are an abomination! Even if the content is standards based. Lars Gunther Hi Lars, I can't see what difference it makes - if someone chooses to create a mobile-device-friendly version of their site and publish it under a separate URL (as opposed to the elegant way - that is, using a mobile-device-friendly stylesheet) then that is probably their business. We may laugh at them, but the average user will probably appreciate a positive match to a show me restaurants in Timbuktu with iPhone-friendly sites search. Of course, your mileage may vary. Best regards, Andrew -- --- Andrew Boyd http://onblogging.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
