On 2/6/12 11:42 AM, James Graham wrote:
No, but there is a different *typical* screen size/resolution for
mobile/tablet/desktop/tv and it is common to deliver different content
in each of these scenarios. Although people could load the same site on
desktop and mobile set up to have the same viewport dimensions, it is
not that probable and, only one of the two is likely to be resized.
It's very probable that a "mobile" or "tablet" screen will be zoomed in
various ways. People do this all the time.
A typical thing that people want to do is to deliver and display *less*
content in small (measured in arcseconds) screen scenarios.
This assumes that the entire page is onscreen at once, which is a pretty
bad assumption for said scenarios.
I feel like I must be missing something pretty fundamental here. Either
said "people" are assuming users never use zoom-and-pan type controls on
their devices or there's something more complicated going on. What am I
missing?
I am sympathetic to the view that it would be desirable to be able to minimise
the cost
of generating a reduced-functionality page without burning the savings
on extra round trips.
Sure. I'm not entirely sure how sympathetic I am to the need to produce
"reduced-functionality" pages... The examples I've encountered have
mostly been in one of three buckets:
1) "Why isn't the desktop version just like this vastly better mobile one?"
2) "The mobile version has a completely different workflow necessitating
a different url structure, not just different images and CSS"
3) "We'll randomly lock you out of features even though your browser and
device can handle them just fine"
-Boris
