I forgot about the forum too... I agree with Reinier, probably best to keep the existing mobile interface around. At least for now.
There are some tools available that maintain lists of devices. I am not sure how easy it is to do in rails, but I have used it in php with Drupal. The data can come from here: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ Something to think about. There are a lot of user agents out there these days and I wouldn't want tracks to have to keep track of them. Short of using some sort of detection scheme, a subdirectory would good idea. I would suggest that we keep it short as we are talking about mobile devices here. Smartphone is too much typing. Maybe /sp or /lite? I also suspect that it would easier to dumb down the main interface vs adding functionality to the mobile. DRY is good. Eric, I like the idea of a discussion on skype. That would be very helpful. Are you in the US? Tim On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Reinier Balt <[email protected]> wrote: > I keep track using http://www.getontracks.org/forums/atom/ > > The traffic manageable > > > > We could indeed start with a smartphone view. Perhaps select the right > mobile view based on user-agent? > > > > Reinier > > > > *Van:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *Namens *Eric Allen > *Verzonden:* maandag 22 maart 2010 19:45 > *Aan:* track-discuss > > *Onderwerp:* [Tracks-discuss] Re: Future of the "mobile" interface > > > > Oh right, I keep forgetting that there's a forum. If the existing mobile > interface is going to be kept, then what do we call the new mobile > interface? Smartphone mode? How do we differentiate the two? > > > > What is the target of jquery for mobile devices? Is js support common > nowadays? I’m no expert here… > > jQuery is used heavily by mobile sites designed for the iPhone, often with > something like jQTouch <http://www.jqtouch.com/>. Android, WebOS, and > iPhone all use some form of WebKit, which has great JavaScript support. > > > > I like your strategy for the next mobile interface. Reuse as much as > possible from the regular interface. > > DRY, right? :) > > > > On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Reinier Balt wrote: > > > > I don’t think the current mobile view is throw-away (yet). Looking at > the tickets and the forum messages, the mobile view is widely used. We also > have a gmail widget that uses the mobile view. Not everybody is using an > iphone or android :-) > > > > What is the target of jquery for mobile devices? Is js support common > nowadays? I’m no expert here… > > > > I like your strategy for the next mobile interface. Reuse as much as > possible from the regular interface. > > > > Reinier > > > > *Van:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *Namens*Eric Allen > *Verzonden:* maandag 22 maart 2010 14:53 > *Aan:* Tim Madden > *CC:* track-discuss > *Onderwerp:* [Tracks-discuss] Re: Future of the "mobile" interface > > > > Tim, > > I totally agree with you. I've found myself using the desktop Tracks > interface on my iPhone for everything but adding tasks. That's even on a > crappy 2G wireless connection. I've wanted to do something with the mobile > interface at some point, but I haven't found the time to make it happen. I'm > happy to do what I can to support you on bringing a better mobile interface > to fruition. > > > > As for how to get there, I think the current mobile interface is probably > throw-away if we want a real, rich, mobile interface. I'd take the desktop > interface and throw some stylesheets at it to avoid forking code as much as > possible. This could be our chance to get real graceful degradation in all > of Tracks, not just the mobile interface. Now that I've cleaned up the > JavaScript code (and put it all in application.js), the way is open to fix > up a lot of the view templates, and in doing so we should be able to isolate > things into partials such that the mobile interface is just a re-combination > of those same partials with a different set of JavaScript and CSS. I'd be > interested in going through the view layer with you over Skype or something > to see how feasible this is. > > > > I'm excited! > > > > -Eric > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Tim Madden <[email protected]> wrote: > > I wanted to start a discussion about the future of our mobile interface > with the group and solicit some feedback. > > First, the mobile version is a great asset to have. The interface is super > lightweight, clean and works universally (more or less). However, the > mobiles that are in the pockets of many tracks users today, likely most, > have browsers capable of much more. Every "smartphone" and many > non-"smartphones" support some level of javascript. However, if you visit > the mainline tracks interface on your smartphone, the experience is > comprised. I happen to use a blackberry (and we used to have an ipod touch, > but the kids fried it) and it works but much of the javascript goodies are > lost and this actually limits the interface's usefulness. For example, > autocomplete and javascript powered drop down menus among others (at least > on my blackberry) do not work. > > So my thought is we need some happy medium between the two. Something with > some basic javascript for things like ticking off completed actions while > respecting the expected screen resolution of ~320px wide. It should avoid > drop down menus and the add and edit form probably need to be left to a > separate page instead of region of the page or an overlay on the existing > page. > > The question I have is what path offers the least resistance to achieve > this goal? (We must be realistic. This is an open source project after all. > We may have big dreams, but we also have small time budgets to contribute!) > One path would be to take the existing mobile interface and layer in some of > the important javascript goodness we want... Alternatively, we could clone > the rich interface and dumb down the javascript to the essentials and slim > the width of the interface to an arbitrary goal ( say 320px)? Maybe there > are tools to use I am unaware of?? > > Let me know if you have input on the idea. I am willing to take a run at a > development branch, but wanted to gather some opinion first, > > Thanks, Tim > > _______________________________________________ > Tracks-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tracks-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Tracks-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rousette.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/tracks-discuss
