> We could try to enhance the /m page to redirect capable phones to /sp or > something? Sounds good, as long as there is a way to manually override and get back to the /m interface. I suspect we can support nearly everybody on the /sp interface if we build it right, though.
> I saw some screencast about supporting iPhone on rails. There is a separate > library with helpers to make it easy. Don’t know about support for other > phones though… Yeah, a lot of Rails stuff is iPhone-specific because virtually all Rails people (at least in SF) are Apple fanboys and have iPhones. We should definitely target a wider range of devices. On Mar 25, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Reinier Balt wrote: > We could try to enhance the /m page to redirect capable phones to /sp or > something? I saw some screencast about supporting iPhone on rails. There is a > separate library with helpers to make it easy. Don’t know about support for > other phones though… > > Reinier > > Van: Tim Madden [mailto:[email protected]] > Verzonden: donderdag 25 maart 2010 3:32 > Aan: Reinier Balt > CC: Eric Allen; track-discuss > Onderwerp: Re: [Tracks-discuss] Re: Future of the "mobile" interface > > 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. 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]] NamensEric 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
