Mobile Website companies

MattLad · 02-07-2012 11:40am #1

Hi

I'm looking for a company to develop a mobile website for my company. Not an app a mobile website. I have found a few but they all have developed some poor quality websites.
Does anyone know any good ones that they would recommend?

Thanks

Sparks · 02-07-2012 4:20pm

Moved from Development

smash · 02-07-2012 5:39pm

ask the company that created your desktop website. A mobile website is fairly easy.

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 11:29am

smash wrote: »

A mobile website is fairly easy.

And that attitude is why many mobile Web sites are "poor quality".

smash · 06-07-2012 12:36pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

And that attitude is why many mobile Web sites are "poor quality".

If you say they're hard, then you just can't code properly to be honest!

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 12:53pm

Stupid answer, TBH.

Developing for a different platform isn't simply about good or bad 'code', or the differences between one browser and another. It's also about understanding how that platform is used, how the user interacts with it, its strengths and weaknesses.

Twelve years ago, a bunch of marketing bunnies in the various operators tried to sell WAP as "the Internet on your phone". Other than the obvious bandwidth and device limitations, they failed to grasp that it wasn't simply a Web browser on a different device but that a completely different paradigm. Needless to say an over-hyped and underwhelmed public rejected it and the rest is history.

Conversely smartphones took off because Apple understood that this had to be approached with a completely fresh attitude, which had not been grasped previously by Nokia or even RIM.

So to suggest that transitioning from traditional to mobile Web is "fairly easy" ignores that it is not simply a question of boning up on the tags and screen sizes. There's a lot more to that, which is why many technically quite competent mobile sites out there are ultimately crap.

smash · 06-07-2012 1:00pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Twelve years ago, a bunch of marketing bunnies in the various operators tried to sell WAP as "the Internet on your phone".

This has absolutely nothing to do with mobile web today. It's like comparing windows 7 with windows 95.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So to suggest that transitioning from traditional to mobile Web is "fairly easy" ignores that it is not simply a question of boning up on the tags and screen sizes.

It is easy to identify what the client wants out of their mobile website and make it work in a user friendly manner.

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's a lot more to that, which is why many technically quite competent mobile sites out there are ultimately crap.

Show me some examples.

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 1:28pm

smash wrote: »

This has absolutely nothing to do with mobile web today. It's like comparing windows 7 with windows 95.

Wrong. The same situation persists today; while the device and network capabilities have changed, that's all that changed. It's still not a Web site that simply sits on your phone, because how the user will interact with it, what services they seek, how they behave is drastically different to how they would with a traditional Web site.

It is easy to identify what the client wants out of their mobile website and make it work in a user friendly manner.

Sure it is, if you know more than just the technical or superficial differences between a traditional and mobile site. All too often Web developers simply choose to port what is on one to the other - concentrating on the pure technical aspects. They forget that users don't use mobile Web the same way or for the same things, or that mobile Web can be leveraged in ways that traditional Web cannot, for example.

And worst of all, they cannot advise their clients on this because they're as clueless as them.

Show me some examples.

The BBC mobile News site is an example of a good site. For other examples of good sites, I suggest you look at porn as being largely locked out of the app market, they've compensated by producing some incredible sites (and I don't mean the content).

As for bad, there's plenty; the Economist has an appalling site, off the top of my head, but there's no shortage of bad mobile sites out there.

smash · 06-07-2012 1:37pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Wrong. The same situation persists today; while the device and network capabilities have changed, that's all that changed.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Mobile smartphone browsers can handle the latest technologies. WAP was 100% useless.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's still not a Web site that simply sits on your phone, because how the user will interact with it, what services they seek, how they behave is drastically different to how they would with a traditional Web site.

It's a stripped down website which should be created to deliver a product/experience to a user without the addition bulk.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure it is, if you know more than just the technical or superficial differences between a traditional and mobile site. All too often Web developers simply choose to port what is on one to the other - concentrating on the pure technical aspects. They forget that users don't use mobile Web the same way or for the same things, or that mobile Web can be leveraged in ways that traditional Web cannot, for example.

That's bad planning, and bad design.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The BBC mobile News site is an example of a good site. For other examples of good sites, I suggest you look at porn as being largely locked out of the app market, they've compensated by producing some incredible sites (and I don't mean the content).

There's no need to even look that far. Have a look at the likes of car manufacturers and their mobile websites. A lot of them have done a good job.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As for bad, there's plenty; the Economist has an appalling site, off the top of my head, but there's no shortage of bad mobile sites out there.

Those examples are purely down to a bad and clueless designer.

Sparks · 06-07-2012 1:52pm

smash wrote: »

It's a stripped down website which should be created to deliver a product/experience to a user without the addition bulk.

It really, really isn't.
It's a completely different kind of information channel to the end user, because it will be used in a different way, in a different context, with different input modalities, and with wildly different constraints and expectations.

Look, if I'm sitting at my desk and I go to the Dublin Bus website, I'm planning a trip. I'll want to see many options, I'll have a nice big screen to read them on, I won't mind if it takes a second or two to respond. A tool to help me plan my route would be excellent.

If I'm on the Dublin Bus mobile site, I'm on a mobile phone, probably in the street at a bus stop or looking for the nearest bus stop. I'll know my exact location from GPS and local time, and the website ought to be presenting data to me based on that - instead of a lot of data to give me options, it should be showing me very little data and picking that data from all the available input. It should be cognisant of the size of the screen, yes, and of the limitations of the input device; but those are fairly small usability issues in comparison to the massive shift in what the user wants from a mobile website compared to what they want when sitting at their desk on a normal desktop browser.

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 1:52pm

smash wrote: »

Sorry, but you're wrong. Mobile smartphone browsers can handle the latest technologies. WAP was 100% useless.

Still focusing on the technology I see.

It's a stripped down website which should be created to deliver a product/experience to a user without the addition bulk.

Unless we're talking brochureware, then it's not.

People seek different things from a traditional and mobile site, to begin with. For a chain of shops, locating a branch on the former is a low priority compared to allowing them to browse through special offers at leisure.

With a mobile site, they're not going to be browsing through the special offers in the same way and are far more likely to seek the closest branch to them instead, thus not only prioritizing that but also demanding functionality, such as LBS, that are not so readily available on traditional sites.

You'll see the same with apps; the Facebook app (which is really a mobile Web site in an app wrapper) is not simply a stripped down version of the main site, but focuses on location and messaging, even more so than the main site.

That's bad planning, and bad design.

Yes, but that's my point; you can only design and plan as well as you understand what you're planning and designing for and if you're already dismissing it as "fairly easy", you're frankly not going to be able to do either very well.

I am not disagreeing with you that bad mobile sites are a product of poor design or planning, but why that design or planning is poor to begin with.

smash · 06-07-2012 2:05pm

Sparks wrote: »

It really, really isn't.

yea, it is.

Sparks wrote: »

It's a completely different kind of information channel to the end user, because it will be used in a different way, in a different context, with different input modalities, and with wildly different constraints and expectations.

And as I already said, "It is easy to identify what the client wants out of their mobile website and make it work in a user friendly manner." User friendly manner includes delivering something that engages with the user to deliver their expectations.

Sparks wrote: »

If I'm on the Dublin Bus mobile site, I'm on a mobile phone, probably in the street at a bus stop or looking for the nearest bus stop. I'll know my exact location from GPS and local time, and the website ought to be presenting data to me based on that - instead of a lot of data to give me options, it should be showing me very little data and picking that data from all the available input.

That is so narrow minded. You could also be looking for data on bus times for a totally different route that you will be getting later. If it was to present you with data based on your location then you're confusing the user. It should be an option, but it should in no way be the default.

The Corinthian wrote: »

People seek different things from a traditional and mobile site, to begin with. For a chain of shops, locating a branch on the former is a low priority compared to allowing them to browse through special offers at leisure.

With a mobile site, they're not going to be browsing through the special offers in the same way and are far more likely to seek the closest branch to them instead, thus not only prioritizing that but also demanding functionality, such as LBS, that are not so readily available on traditional sites.

It's common sense that the sites are used differently and are stripped to to suit how people use mobiles. I've said that already.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, but that's my point; you can only design and plan as well as you understand what you're planning and designing for and if you're already dismissing it as "fairly easy", you're frankly not going to be able to do either very well.

I'm currently doing both very well. Know your customers, understand their market and understand how people use mobiles and it's quite easy to make it work.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I am not disagreeing with you that bad mobile sites are a product of poor design or planning, but why that design or planning is poor to begin with.

It's bad to begin with because of numerous reasons, I'd say the top 2 reasons being a lack of understanding of mobile within a development department and bad business decisions.

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 2:19pm

smash wrote: »

It's common sense that the sites are used differently and are stripped to to suit how people use mobiles. I've said that already.

So mobile sites are used differently ergo stripping them down will do the trick?

I'm currently doing both very well. Know your customers, understand their market and understand how people use mobiles and it's quite easy to make it work.

I don't think you have the third quality, based upon what you've written here though.

I'm sure you can sell yourself well to clients and knock up technically very competent 'stripped down' mobile sites, and could even be successful at it. Doesn't make those mobile sites any good though. Then again, the Irish Webdev market always had its fair share of cowboys.

It's bad to begin with because of numerous reasons, I'd say the top 2 reasons being a lack of understanding of mobile within a development department and bad business decisions.

That's a bit of an all encompassing cop out we can all generically agree with, isn't it?

smash · 06-07-2012 2:23pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So mobile sites are used differently ergo stripping them down will do the trick?

Stripping out the bulk is part of it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you have the third quality, based upon what you've written here though.

Well, you're wrong.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sure you can sell yourself well to clients and knock up technically very competent 'stripped down' mobile sites, and could even be successful at it. Doesn't make those mobile sites any good though.

I don't have to sell myself to clients, my team and our work sells itself. We get repeat business because we do it well.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then again, the Irish Webdev market always had its fair share of cowboys.

Which is where I'd put you to be honest. Your comments are representative of the rip of merchants that claim everything is overly complicated.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a bit of an all encompassing cop out we can all generically agree with, isn't it?

But it's the truth. Some of the "bad sites" you pointed out aren't even mobile sites. They just crap that isn't rendered correctly.

professore · 06-07-2012 2:28pm

Sparks wrote: »

If I'm on the Dublin Bus mobile site, I'm on a mobile phone, probably in the street at a bus stop or looking for the nearest bus stop. I'll know my exact location from GPS and local time, and the website ought to be presenting data to me based on that

A mobile website doesn't have access to your GPS coordinates. You need an app for that.

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 2:34pm

smash wrote: »

Stripping out the bulk is part of it.

Well, you're wrong.

I don't have to sell myself to clients, my team and our work sells itself. We get repeat business because we do it well.

I see we're now at the point of your arguments degenerating to cliche's and simply telling me that you're right and I'm wrong.

Which is where I'd put you to be honest. Your comments are representative of the rip of merchants that claim everything is overly complicated.

I never said it was "overly complicated", I simply said that it is not "fairly easy" - big difference, unless your threshold for complexity is lower than mine.

As for cowboys and 'rip of merchants', I'd point to the many who will a little (or no) knowledge will still tell a client they are qualified to do the work, because getting the contract is everything. What I find amusing here is that most cowboys are at least aware that they're not.

But it's the truth. Some of the "bad sites" you pointed out aren't even mobile sites. They just crap that isn't rendered correctly.

It's not the truth you've been arguing though. Bad planning and design does not equate to 'stripped down' sites becoming core to good planning and design. To suggest this is utter nonsense, unless what you've done is decided to change your argument.

smash · 06-07-2012 2:34pm

professore wrote: »

A mobile website doesn't have access to your GPS coordinates. You need an app for that.

Yes it does if you give it permission.

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 2:40pm

professore wrote: »

A mobile website doesn't have access to your GPS coordinates. You need an app for that.

Actually it can with many GPS enabled phones; certainly Android, iPhone and Blackberry (almost certain Symbian too). API's are OS specific and it has to be allowed by the user.

smash · 06-07-2012 2:42pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I see we're now at the point of your arguments degenerating to cliche's and simply telling me that you're right and I'm wrong.

Well from what I can see, all you've done is say that I don't know what I'm talking about and you are wrong in saying that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said it was "overly complicated", I simply said that it is not "fairly easy" - big difference, unless your threshold for complexity is lower than mine.

In my eyes it is fairly easy. Explain to me one thing that's not easy about creating a mobile website.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not the truth you've been arguing though. Bad planning and design does not equate to 'stripped down' sites becoming core to good planning and design. To suggest this is utter nonsense, unless what you've done is decided to change your argument.

I never stated that. I said mobile sites should be stripped down versions of desktop sites, which they should. I never said that stripping it down makes it a good site. To make it a good site it has to usable and suit a mobile handset. That's common sense.

professore · 06-07-2012 2:44pm

I read full websites on my phone all the time. Don't see what the big deal is. A huge amount of effort seems to be expended on how something "looks" to "appeal" to the users, whoever they are (we are all different by the way - what I like isn't necessarily what you like) with very little effort put into how the site WORKS.

I have seen so many sites that look fabulous but then have dead links or give incorrect information - give me a site that looks bland but WORKS over one that looks fancy and DOESN'T WORK any day. Google being the prime example.

Also having loads of menu options is a bad idea on mobile. 4 or 5 tops with a search feature.

However a mobile app is the way to go in most cases. The People's Republic of Cork Android App is a prime example of an effective mobile website (even though it's an app, it could easily be done as a website) with the "Where's Me Bus" feature a stroke of genius, and not a GPS in sight. Of course a lot of people keep their GPS switched off to save battery and privacy concerns anyway.

professore · 06-07-2012 2:49pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually it can with many GPS enabled phones; certainly Android, iPhone and Blackberry (almost certain Symbian too). API's are OS specific and it has to be allowed by the user.

I stand corrected. Wow that is intrusive.

smash · 06-07-2012 2:50pm

professore wrote: »

I stand corrected. Wow that is intrusive.

How so when you have to give it permission?

professore · 06-07-2012 3:37pm

smash wrote: »

How so when you have to give it permission?

The average user will just click "OK", let's face it, every time you do anything on a modern OS you are bombarded with permission all sorts of requests. It's a reasonable expectation that a website would not track your exact location. I don't like this at all.

smash · 06-07-2012 4:09pm

Take iOS for example, it's not for a spacific website, you have to allow the permission for Safari to use the gps. If you don't like it, leave it turned off.

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 4:57pm

smash wrote: »

Well from what I can see, all you've done is say that I don't know what I'm talking about and you are wrong in saying that.

Actually I did more than that and even went so far as to give a brief example involving differing priorities and mobile specific functionality. By coincidence Sparks posted a similar example and in responding to his you essentially ignored all the relevant points he made.

In my eyes it is fairly easy. Explain to me one thing that's not easy about creating a mobile website.

My point, which I've repeatedly made but you're having difficulty comprehending, is not so much to do with whether it is easy or not, but the dismissive manner in which you equated it as simply being a "fairly easy" offshoot of normal Web development - and it is a fair bit more than that, not on a technical level, IMHO, but in how the two platforms differ in terms of user experience, behavior and priorities.

To date, you've summed up the difference as, at best, one simply being a 'mobile optimized' cut down version of the other, which is painfully wrong.

I never stated that. I said mobile sites should be stripped down versions of desktop sites, which they should. I never said that stripping it down makes it a good site. To make it a good site it has to usable and suit a mobile handset. That's common sense.

Actually is should never be approached as a stripped down version of a desktop site but as a completely new application that draws from the client's existing content and services and may well share the back end of the site, but ultimately is not simply a mobile version of that site.

I don't think you get that and judging by your responses, I don't think you want to, TBH.

The Corinthian · 06-07-2012 5:00pm

professore wrote: »

The average user will just click "OK", let's face it, every time you do anything on a modern OS you are bombarded with permission all sorts of requests. It's a reasonable expectation that a website would not track your exact location. I don't like this at all.

Web sites have been tracking users for a long time. IP addresses, navigation on the site, where you're coming from, how long you stay, your browser and OS, and so on.

The reality is that most of this data is collected for purely functional or statistical reasons - tin foil hats aside, no one actually cares where you are.

jmcc · 06-07-2012 5:37pm

smash wrote: »

In my eyes it is fairly easy. Explain to me one thing that's not easy about creating a mobile website.

Prioritising the link structure so that the user can navigate the site easily.

I said mobile sites should be stripped down versions of desktop sites, which they should.

No they should not. Each website format should take the best advantage of the medium. Thus an information (text) rich approach may work better for a mobile site whereas a media/image rich approach may work better for a desktop site. The trick is to make each format work efficiently so that the navigation works for the user.

Regards...jmcc

Feathers · 06-07-2012 5:56pm

smash wrote: »

Stripping out the bulk is part of it.

If you find that you've a lot of 'bulk' on your desktop site that can be quite easily stripped out of a mobile site without too much concern, I'd say that you've done something wrong with this site to begin with.

If it's relevant information for desktop users, how do you know if won't be relevant to mobile users? Keep in mind that mobile could be on an iPad on a 4 hour train journey — not everything is 5s on the site to get a specific piece of information.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said it was "overly complicated", I simply said that it is not "fairly easy" - big difference, unless your threshold for complexity is lower than mine.

I guess it boils down to the question — would you say building a desktop site is 'fairly easy'?

professore wrote: »

However a mobile app is the way to go in most cases.

Most cases? If you're looking for the nearest Argos store & their opening hours, would you download an app? Or if you wanted to see a restaurant's menu & book a table?

I'd say for the majority of businesses a mobile app is a waste of time and money. Unless you've a real utility app to offer, like Google Maps or the bus timetable you mentioned. Or it's a site where I'm a repeat user with tailored information, like eBay.

professore wrote: »

The average user will just click "OK", let's face it, every time you do anything on a modern OS you are bombarded with permission all sorts of requests. It's a reasonable expectation that a website would not track your exact location. I don't like this at all.

The API provides two levels of permissions that you can give to a site — rough (for example to check houses on Daft near you) & specific (e.g. for walking directions). This article on Geolocation is worth a read if you're interested.

smash · 06-07-2012 7:23pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually I did more than that and even went so far as to give a brief example involving differing priorities and mobile specific functionality. By coincidence Sparks posted a similar example and in responding to his you essentially ignored all the relevant points he made.

I don't recall that, the only thing mentioned so far is gps actually.

The Corinthian wrote: »

My point, which I've repeatedly made but you're having difficulty comprehending, is not so much to do with whether it is easy or not, but the dismissive manner in which you equated it as simply being a "fairly easy" offshoot of normal Web development - and it is a fair bit more than that, not on a technical level, IMHO, but in how the two platforms differ in terms of user experience, behavior and priorities.

And my point is that it is not that difficult really.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To date, you've summed up the difference as, at best, one simply being a 'mobile optimized' cut down version of the other, which is painfully wrong.

I never said a mobile optimized cut down version. And to be honest I think you know what I meant when I said "It's a stripped down website which should be created to deliver a product/experience to a user without the addition bulk." but you[re just looking for a silly argument.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually is should never be approached as a stripped down version of a desktop site but as a completely new application that draws from the client's existing content and services and may well share the back end of the site, but ultimately is not simply a mobile version of that site.

So you didn't read my point in one of my first replies to you? "It is easy to identify what the client wants out of their mobile website and make it work in a user friendly manner."

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you get that and judging by your responses, I don't think you want to, TBH.

I don't think you're actually reading my responses.

jmcc wrote: »

Prioritising the link structure so that the user can navigate the site easily.

Which again is back to a point I made earlier: "It is easy to identify what the client wants out of their mobile website and make it work in a user friendly manner."

jmcc wrote: »

No they should not. Each website format should take the best advantage of the medium. Thus an information (text) rich approach may work better for a mobile site whereas a media/image rich approach may work better for a desktop site.

It depends on the nature of the client's business.

Feathers wrote: »

If you find that you've a lot of 'bulk' on your desktop site that can be quite easily stripped out of a mobile site without too much concern, I'd say that you've done something wrong with this site to begin with.

Well that's just a rubbish response to be honest. Clients will fill their sites with pages of content that's good for seo and is relevant to their business but is not suitable for their mobile website.

Feathers wrote: »

If it's relevant information for desktop users, how do you know if won't be relevant to mobile users? Keep in mind that mobile could be on an iPad on a 4 hour train journey — not everything is 5s on the site to get a specific piece of information.

Mobile should not be on an iPad unless you have coded a responsive design, otherwise you display the full website.

Freddio · 06-07-2012 7:26pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

tin foil hats aside, no one actually cares where you are.

The Gardai cared quite a bit that Joe O'Reilly's phone was checking in with a mobile mast near his home at the time of his wife's murder when he said he was in town and Google's new terms say they will hand over any data they have to the police if the requests are valid. That would include Gmail, Analytics, GPS, Web searches etc

Giblet · 06-07-2012 7:42pm

I guess it depends what you want from a mobile site. If you just want a different presentation layer for the same content with maybe some concessions made for content that isn't suitable (either redesigned, or left out all together), yeah it can be straight forward enough. If you want fancier, more native response to the look and feel, and some touch interaction, or a responsive design, that touches all aspects of the website then it gets more complicated. Most people have the budget for the former.
I would need to know more about the website before recommending anyone.

Feathers · 06-07-2012 10:37pm

smash wrote: »

Feathers wrote:

If you find that you've a lot of 'bulk' on your desktop site that can be quite easily stripped out of a mobile site without too much concern, I'd say that you've done something wrong with this site to begin with.

Well that's just a rubbish response to be honest. Clients will fill their sites with pages of content that's good for seo and is relevant to their business but is not suitable for their mobile website.

Firstly, bad copy is bad whether it's done by a copy writer in your agency or a secretary in the clients office, it should be judged on its own merits. Just because it's the client that's doing it doesn't justify whether content should be in the site or not.

Secondly, if its relevant to their business how is it not suitable for mobile? Can you give an example?

smash wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

If it's relevant information for desktop users, how do you know if won't be relevant to mobile users? Keep in mind that mobile could be on an iPad on a 4 hour train journey — not everything is 5s on the site to get a specific piece of information.

Mobile should not be on an iPad unless you have coded a responsive design, otherwise you display the full website.

OK, a HTC One - the point is the same: second guessing that your user doesn't want rich content because they're on a portable device is wrong. By all means, change the navigation & use features like location awareness, but stripping out chunks of your site because you presume all users on a small screen are in a hurry or on the move isn't an accurate reflection of mobile use.

Also, if your not doing responsive design considering the array of screen sizes & pixel density you've to deal with, you're not building a modern website.

jmcc · 07-07-2012 12:14am

smash wrote: »

Which again is back to a point I made earlier: "It is easy to identify what the client wants out of their mobile website and make it work in a user friendly manner."

The point is that the site has to give the user what they want. Sometimes what the client thinks the user wants is not what the user wants. This is why some webdevs tend to get things backwards and end up designing brochureware sites that please the client but then don't get used.

Regards...jmcc

smash · 07-07-2012 5:39am

Feathers wrote: »

Firstly, bad copy is bad whether it's done by a copy writer in your agency or a secretary in the clients office, it should be judged on its own merits. Just because it's the client that's doing it doesn't justify whether content should be in the site or not.

Secondly, if its relevant to their business how is it not suitable for mobile? Can you give an example?

Company history or staff bios.

Feathers wrote: »

OK, a HTC One - the point is the same: second guessing that your user doesn't want rich content because they're on a portable device is wrong.

I didn't say that.

Feathers wrote: »

By all means, change the navigation & use features like location awareness, but stripping out chunks of your site because you presume all users on a small screen are in a hurry or on the move isn't an accurate reflection of mobile use.

It's not like that. It's more about providing the user with what they want and need based on the results of the analytics from their desktop site.

Feathers wrote: »

Also, if your not doing responsive design considering the array of screen sizes & pixel density you've to deal with, you're not building a modern website.

Responsive design for mobile is different than responsive design where the whole site changes when you resize a screen.

smash · 07-07-2012 5:42am

jmcc wrote: »

The point is that the site has to give the user what they want. Sometimes what the client thinks the user wants is not what the user wants. This is why some webdevs tend to get things backwards and end up designing brochureware sites that please the client but then don't get used.

Regards...jmcc

I agree, see my comment about the analytics above.

Giblet · 07-07-2012 8:48am

smash wrote: »

Responsive design for mobile is different than responsive design where the whole site changes when you resize a screen.

Huh? Responsive design is responsive design, the whole idea is that you design one website that works with all viewports, abbreviated or not.

I wouldn't cut anything out of the site. You have a bunch of SEO done for your main site, you search Google, you get links for that site. Should some of them redirect to the mobile version and some for the desktop version because it's not available? That's a pretty bad user experience. I'd recommend blocking Google from even crawling the mobile version (if it's separate, not really a concern for a responsive design). The SEO generated for the main site should be valid for the mobile. So you need all content to be reflected in both. Some search robots get confused and get caught by common redirect strategies too, so if you didn't do this, you might miss a ton of content being crawled.

smash · 07-07-2012 9:38am

What you're saying is true for a small business, but look at any of the top Irish websites and see what they've done with mobile! Their sites are too large to transition to mobile so they present the user with the features or pages most used on their desktop site.

Giblet · 07-07-2012 9:41am

That's not true, I work on a few websites for large companies, and they want it all. These are full eCommerce + Corporate websites too, so a lot of functionality.
I don't care what anyone else has done either, especially if they haven't done it correctly (I wonder how many are eager to expand their mobile offering)

smash · 07-07-2012 9:50am

Giblet wrote: »

smash wrote: »

Responsive design for mobile is different than responsive design where the whole site changes when you resize a screen.

Huh? Responsive design is responsive design, the whole idea is that you design one website that works with all viewports, abbreviated or not.

and just to go back to this, what I meant to say was a fluid mobile site to cover various screen sizes and resolutions.

Giblet · 07-07-2012 9:53am

smash · 07-07-2012 9:55am

Still, I'd like to see an example of a mobile version of a large website that has all the info from the Desktop website.

The Corinthian · 07-07-2012 10:32am

Feathers wrote: »

I guess it boils down to the question — would you say building a desktop site is 'fairly easy'?

This was never really my point; I challenged the notion that transitioning from traditional to mobile Web development is 'fairly easy'. I did so as it is a simplistic viewpoint based upon two separate media that are superficially similar because they share similar technologies.

You got the same thing fifteen years ago from DTP houses who discovered WYSIWYG's like Adobe PageMill. I remember many were convinced that going from print design to Web design was also 'fairly easy'.

smash wrote: »

I don't recall that, the only thing mentioned so far is gps actually.

Actually prioritization was also something that was pointed out; functionality that would be important on a traditional Web site may well be of little importance to a user, while other functionality becomes prioritized.

The example I gave was of a chain of shops; at home the user is more likely to wish to browse special offers, for example. However as mobile will more likely be used while away from home, functionality such as finding the nearest affiliate would become a likely reason for the user's visit.

This is not to suggest that you should not allow a user to also browse special offers on a mobile site (as you erroniously responded to Sparks earlier when he raised the topic of prioritization), only that priorities change on a mobile site in keeping with user behaviour.

As for the use of mobile specific functionality with GPS, when mentioned, you completely ignored it. In fact you've not touched on this at all and have instead doggedly stuck to your simplistic 'cut down' approach.

I never said a mobile optimized cut down version. And to be honest I think you know what I meant when I said "It's a stripped down website which should be created to deliver a product/experience to a user without the addition bulk." but you[re just looking for a silly argument.

I've no intention of second guessing what you 'meant' in retrospect - I'll stick to what you've actually said, much of which was pretty generic and meaningless and to date the only strategy to mobile Web development you've actually suggested is a 'stripped down' Web site.

Certainly 'stripping down' a Web site (at least of bandwidth hungry media) is part of the process, however prioritization and mobile specific functionality, designed for the medium are also equally important. You've not mentioned and even, when cited, ignored these.

So you didn't read my point in one of my first replies to you? "It is easy to identify what the client wants out of their mobile website and make it work in a user friendly manner."

This would be one of those pretty generic and meaningless comments I spoke of earlier - making it work in a user friendly manner is just a black box response; you can say that about anything without knowing how to. How do you make it work in a user friendly manner? Does it differ from a traditional Web site? If so how?

This is actually what we're arguing about, not that a site should "work in a user friendly manner" - of course it should. Yet you don't answer this and simply expect us to accept a generic and meaningless cliche.

And I would also question that it is easy to identify what the client wants; it often can be but as often as not the client may lack knowledge of what is possible or advisable, or may simply not have what they want fully defined in their own head.

Freddio wrote: »

The Gardai cared quite a bit that Joe O'Reilly's phone was checking in with a mobile mast near his home at the time of his wife's murder when he said he was in town and Google's new terms say they will hand over any data they have to the police if the requests are valid. That would include Gmail, Analytics, GPS, Web searches etc

Fair point. However, to begin with the Joe O'Reilly example has nothing to do with even the Internet. As for Google's new terms, I accept your point, but this has as much to do with a site being able to identify you as an individual; most sites cannot and are not overly interested in knowing your identity.

Nonetheless, you make a valid point.

smash · 07-07-2012 10:57am

The Corinthian wrote: »

This was never really my point;

Well you did, because I originally said he should ask the company who created his desktop site because it should be fairly easy for them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I challenged the notion that transitioning from traditional to mobile Web development is 'fairly easy'. I did so as it is a simplistic viewpoint based upon two separate media that are superficially similar because they share similar technologies.

The fact that the technology is almost the same is pretty important.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You got the same thing fifteen years ago from DTP houses who discovered WYSIWYG's like Adobe PageMill. I remember many were convinced that going from print design to Web design was also 'fairly easy'.

Print design and web design are totally separate in all regards.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually prioritization was also something that was pointed out; functionality that would be important on a traditional Web site may well be of little importance to a user, while other functionality becomes prioritized.

Thanks captain obvious.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The example I gave was of a chain of shops; at home the user is more likely to wish to browse special offers, for example. However as mobile will more likely be used while away from home, functionality such as finding the nearest affiliate would become a likely reason for the user's visit.

Back to GPS again.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is not to suggest that you should not allow a user to also browse special offers on a mobile site (as you erroniously responded to Sparks earlier when he raised the topic of prioritization), only that priorities change on a mobile site in keeping with user behaviour.

I already agreed that priorities change.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As for the use of mobile specific functionality with GPS, when mentioned, you completely ignored it. In fact you've not touched on this at all and have instead doggedly stuck to your simplistic 'cut down' approach.

Read my posts before you reply will you "That is so narrow minded. You could also be looking for data on bus times for a totally different route that you will be getting later. If it was to present you with data based on your location then you're confusing the user. It should be an option, but it should in no way be the default."

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've no intention of second guessing what you 'meant' in retrospect - I'll stick to what you've actually said, much of which was pretty generic and meaningless and to date the only strategy to mobile Web development you've actually suggested is a 'stripped down' Web site.

Because it is stripped down. It's stripped down so that the important information is clearly presented to the user and the menu structures are not as complex.

The Corinthian wrote: »

ICertainly 'stripping down' a Web site (at least of bandwidth hungry media) is part of the process, however prioritization and mobile specific functionality, designed for the medium are also equally important. You've not mentioned and even, when cited, ignored these.

That's not true, it was the first point I made "It is easy to identify what the client wants out of their mobile website and make it work in a user friendly manner." this is prioritization.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This would be one of those pretty generic and meaningless comments I spoke of earlier - making it work in a user friendly manner is just a black box response; you can say that about anything without knowing how to. How do you make it work in a user friendly manner? Does it differ from a traditional Web site? If so how?

This is actually what we're arguing about, not that a site should "work in a user friendly manner" - of course it should. Yet you don't answer this and simply expect us to accept a generic and meaningless cliche.

Well I wouldn't expect to have to talk to a programmer/designer in a way where I have to spell out every I say. User friendly means exactly that. Make it user friendly for the medium you are delivering the product on. If you need it spelled out then change industry. And I've yet to see what I don't answer...

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I would also question that it is easy to identify what the client wants; it often can be but as often as not the client may lack knowledge of what is possible or advisable, or may simply not have what they want fully defined in their own head.

And this is why you spec out a project and 90% of the time lead the client in the right direction.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair point. However, to begin with the Joe O'Reilly example has nothing to do with even the Internet. As for Google's new terms, I accept your point, but this has as much to do with a site being able to identify you as an individual; most sites cannot and are not overly interested in knowing your identity.

Nonetheless, you make a valid point.

Just another note on this by the way. Every time you log into an open wifi zone, the provider by law has to keep a record of your mac address and a few other details for a length of time.

The Corinthian · 07-07-2012 11:36am

smash wrote: »

Well you did, because I originally said he should ask the company who created his desktop site because it should be fairly easy for them.

I don't think you understand what I've said at all and I really don't know how to more simply explain it to you at this stage without the use of finger puppets.

One cannot presume that it is 'fairly easy' for them. They're a traditional Webdev firm, as far as we know, and to presume the transition from traditional to mobile Web development is 'fairly easy' ignores much of what has been pointed out to you.

The fact that the technology is almost the same is pretty important.

In so far as it gives a false sense of competence, just as being able to go from QuarkXPress to PageMill did, fifteen years ago.

Print design and web design are totally separate in all regards.

Really? Both can be done using superficially similar technologies (WYSIWYG's) and the transition from one to the other can be carried out 'fairly easily', using much of the same content and skillsets.

The only reason that you're now suggesting that they are 'totally separate' is because you're aware that the transition is a paradigm shift in terms of what users want and how they behave.

Yet, you've presumed no such shift between traditional Web and mobile, beyond bandwidth concerns.

I already agreed that priorities change.

Where? I missed this refinement to your original argument.

Read my posts before you reply will you "That is so narrow minded. You could also be looking for data on bus times for a totally different route that you will be getting later. If it was to present you with data based on your location then you're confusing the user. It should be an option, but it should in no way be the default."

Actually it probably should, especially if user behaviour shows that 95% use the mobile site principally for that functionality. Mobile users hate having to go through additional click-throughs far more than on a desktop and if they do will often bookmark not your homepage but the page they always go to.

Well I wouldn't expect to have to talk to a programmer/designer in a way where I have to spell out every I say.

Actually, you do have to spell it out, because much of what you're saying sounds like generic BS from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but is too proud to admit it. Thus you through a whole load of meaningless generic arguments that could apply to anything in the hope that it deflects the discussion.

Given the number of responses from people here disagreeing with you, many of whom have been in the business a long time, I'm surprised you're still posting.

And this is why you spec out a project and 90% of the time lead the client in the right direction.

And this is always 'easy'?

smash · 07-07-2012 12:06pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you understand what I've said at all and I really don't know how to more simply explain it to you at this stage without the use of finger puppets.

You have pointed out nothing bar the fact that it's a different platform that broadly uses the same technologies. Which nobody argued about.

The Corinthian wrote: »

One cannot presume that it is 'fairly easy' for them. They're a traditional Webdev firm, as far as we know, and to presume the transition from traditional to mobile Web development is 'fairly easy' ignores much of what has been pointed out to you.

Only based on your opinion.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Really? Both can be done using superficially similar technologies (WYSIWYG's) and the transition from one to the other can be carried out 'fairly easily', using much of the same content and skillsets.

No it really can't. Print designers generally don't have a clue about code, nor do they want to.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The only reason that you're now suggesting that they are 'totally separate' is because you're aware that the transition is a paradigm shift in terms of what users want and how they behave.

Sorry what? They're a completely different industry, always have been.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet, you've presumed no such shift between traditional Web and mobile, beyond bandwidth concerns.

You can not compare web and mobile to web and print. You just can't. It's a pathetic argument. Web and mobile are pretty much developed the same way when it boils down to it. Print and web are nothing alike.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where? I missed this refinement to your original argument.

Close to the start. It was a point I made, not one I refined "It's common sense that the sites are used differently and are stripped to to suit how people use mobiles. I've said that already."

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually it probably should, especially if user behaviour shows that 95% use the mobile site principally for that functionality.

So now you're twisting to say "if 95%" bla bla.... I made that point a long time ago about using analytics to define what the users need.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, you do have to spell it out, because much of what you're saying sounds like generic BS from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but is too proud to admit it.

And this is where my conversation with you will end. Because while you're spouting rubbish about print vs web when comparing it to web vs mobile it is clearly you who doesn't have a clue. If you think it's generic bs, then you just don't understand it or don't have enough cop on and you need it spelled out. Mobile web apps take up a lot of my project time in work, I could easily bet I've worked on a lot more projects in the field than you have.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thus you through a whole load of meaningless generic arguments that could apply to anything in the hope that it deflects the discussion.

You could think that, or you know... you could grow up and read the points I've made.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given the number of responses from people here disagreeing with you, many of whom have been in the business a long time, I'm surprised you're still posting.

I've been in the business for 12 years. It's basically been you has has been arguing btw.

Feathers · 07-07-2012 1:48pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

This was never really my point; I challenged the notion that transitioning from traditional to mobile Web development is 'fairly easy'. I did so as it is a simplistic viewpoint based upon two separate media that are superficially similar because they share similar technologies.

You got the same thing fifteen years ago from DTP houses who discovered WYSIWYG's like Adobe PageMill. I remember many were convinced that going from print design to Web design was also 'fairly easy'.

Yeah, I know — was more of a flippant, rhetorical question getting at this idea

I'd say good design is always a lot of work (what are you being paid for otherwise?), but the simplicity of execution on the final product can make it seem easy to others: whether that's print, web, conceptual, whatever.

smash wrote: »

Company history or staff bios.

smash wrote: »

It's not like that. It's more about providing the user with what they want and need based on the results of the analytics from their desktop site.

So you're deciding for me that I don't want to view the company history because I'm on a mobile device? The most frustrating thing for me when I'm on a mobile website is when I find the designer has blocked me from content that I want to use & I then have to reload the full website.

It doesn't matter whether your site loads in less than a second & has halved the bandwidth if I have to go & reload the main site, you've cost me time and bandwidth.

& how can you make a decision about what I do and don't want to see on mobile based on desktop analytics?

smash wrote: »

Responsive design for mobile is different than responsive design where the whole site changes when you resize a screen.

OK. I'm talking about responsive design as a broad term, not fluid CSS.

smash wrote: »

Because while you're spouting rubbish about print vs web when comparing it to web vs mobile it is clearly you who doesn't have a clue.

…

I've been in the business for 12 years.

You're saying that you've been designing website since they looked like this, but don't remember a time that that a lot of people in print design were offering website builds? You don't remember sites written in Microsoft FrontPage/Dreamweaver design view/InDesign?

I'd say the comparison is spot on — there's a lot of people who knew about design previously who didn't know the web that were claiming they could look after your website for you. Now there are a lot of people who know 'traditional' web-design but don't really know mobile saying they'll advise you on your mobile site/app.

If you're saying that a lot of your time in work is dealing with mobile sites & you've been working in the industry for 12 years you've surely come across people like this?

jmcc · 07-07-2012 3:43pm

smash wrote: »

I've been in the business for 12 years. It's basically been you has has been arguing btw.

I have domain names older than that. And a few of us on this thread, The Corinthian included, have been around since the early days of the web (ie before the technology journalists discovered the internet).

Seriously though, the one thing that I have not seen anyone mention in the thread is Information Architecture. For those who run large websites (>=100 million pages) it is very important but strangely it is also very important with mobile web sites because they are relatively sparse in information terms. The screen space is limited and this means that deciding whether to include an "aren't we great?" page high up on the navigation stack is important. And Print and Web design are not totally separate.

Some of the early computerised print design was done with mark-up language and this made things very easy for print designers to adapt to the early web and effectively start producing websites. They were familiar with the basic concepts for layout and choice of fonts.The advent of WYSIWYG software packages really only started with Frontpage, NetObjects Fusion and similar. A lot of clueless people then decided that they too were "web designers" about this time. It was not uncommon to see courses advertised by colleges and universities taught by people who while being familiar with the technology hadn't a clue about aesthetics or design.

One of the most important things in print design is page layout and you are working with a fixed size layout. This meant that a lot of designers with print experience started designing fixed size websites even though the users were using many monitor sizes. Thus you had people who were designing on large monitors (20" or so) with high resolutions designing sites for themselves that looked great on their monitors but lousy on the 15" 800x600 monitor that the average user had at the time. (This was one of the results of the false confidence pointed out by The Corinthian above.)

Tables were used to create these fixed size layouts and many sites still use them for positioning even though they were only intended to display tabular data. The biggest paradigm shift for print designers (a wonderful DotBomb phrase) was designing for a page that could be resized. When you fold a newspaper, the print stays in the same position as you are looking at just a part of the page. When you resize a webpage with a fluid layout, everything moves. This mucked up some designs and it had a lot of designers using a fixed layout.

Now if you look at a magazine page or a newspaper page, they are both filled with cues for the reader and often they are so subtle that the reader doesn't even have to think about them to use them. The page numbers, the section headers, the headlines, the sub-heads, the pull-quotes all have their equivalent in web designs.

The biggest shift with mobile web is that the model changes from a largely Push/Broadcast/Fixed model to a Pull/Narrowcast/Dynamic one. With a desktop design, a lot of information can be stuffed into one webpage without overloading it. With the mobile webpage, space is at a premium and conscious choices have to be made about what to include and what to exclude. That's where Information Architecture becomes important. Forcing web designers to think in terms of IA is perhaps the biggest shift caused by the mobile web.

Regards...jmcc

smash · 07-07-2012 3:49pm

Feathers wrote: »

So you're deciding for me that I don't want to view the company history because I'm on a mobile device? The most frustrating thing for me when I'm on a mobile website is when I find the designer has blocked me from content that I want to use & I then have to reload the full website.

No the client decides that.

Feathers wrote: »

how can you make a decision about what I do and don't want to see on mobile based on desktop analytics?

you have a hotel? you want to sell rooms.
you have a car dealership? you want to sell cars.
This is also what you want to do on your mobile website so that's the4 main focus. you can use your analytics to see what else people want from your company and add it in. I'm not saying you're limited in what you should do no mobile, just saying you should get your USP on your homepage which is obvious.

Feathers wrote: »

You're saying that you've been designing website since they looked like this, but don't remember a time that that a lot of people in print design were offering website builds? You don't remember sites written in Microsoft FrontPage/Dreamweaver design view/InDesign?

I finished college in 2000 and started my first job that summer. At that time maybefriends.ie was live, carzone.ie was live, entertainment.ie was live... and none of them looked bad for their time, and none of them were built in FrontPage etc. I've also never worked in a Print company, and never want to. I was always of the opinion that print designers can't design for web because thy don't understand it enough.

Feathers wrote: »

I'd say the comparison is spot on — there's a lot of people who knew about design previously who didn't know the web that were claiming they could look after your website for you.

But they didn't know the web, that's the key point. Web designers these days who are designing for mobile is just a step up in design for different resolution browsers. The technology used to display both is almost identical, with print, it was a different world.

Feathers wrote: »

Now there are a lot of people who know 'traditional' web-design but don't really know mobile saying they'll advise you on your mobile site/app.

Advising is different than building.

Feathers wrote: »

If you're saying that a lot of your time in work is dealing with mobile sites & you've been working in the industry for 12 years you've surely come across people like this?

I've come across a lot of people like this, but they're generally the same people who wont produce a good desktop site either. They're bad designers, not good designers who are struggling to come to terms with a new platform.

Feathers · 07-07-2012 4:01pm

smash wrote: »

No the client decides that.

You're meant to be the professional here — I hope for your sake, you never have to deal with an architect who has the same attitude that you do.

smash wrote: »

I'm not saying you're limited in what you should do no mobile, just saying you should get your USP on your homepage which is obvious.

Up until now, you have been talking about 'stripping the bulk' out of the site; now you're saying that you're simply moving this information off the homepage. They are completely different things, opposites in fact.

smash wrote: »

But they didn't know the web, that's the key point. Web designers these days who are designing for mobile is just a step up in design for different resolution browsers. The technology used to display both is almost identical, with print, it was a different world.

Fine — would I hire the same developer to do both? Yes. Would I hire the same UX or designer for both, if they'd no experience of mobile? Definitely no.

smash wrote: »

Advising is different than building.

Yes, it's the most important phase of any development project, where you help the client to plan their goals. If a developer can give me good advice around designing for mobile, I'll presume he can also write the underlying code — the opposite isn't the case though.

smash · 07-07-2012 4:08pm

Feathers wrote: »

Up until now, you have been talking about 'stripping the bulk' out of the site; now you're saying that you're simply moving this information off the homepage. They are completely different things, opposites in fact.

Have a look at mini.ie's mobile site or entertainment.ie's mobile site to see how the bulk is stripped out but the sites still deliver the product to the user.

jmcc · 07-07-2012 4:17pm

smash wrote: »

No the client decides that.

You've really got to see things through the eyes of your clients and their target market.

you have a hotel? you want to sell rooms.

No. Look at all the advertising for hotels and you'll see they are selling the experience.

you have a car dealership? you want to sell cars.

Again, no. They are selling dreams of how the buyer sees themselves.

I finished college in 2000 and started my first job that summer. At that time maybefriends.ie was live, carzone.ie was live, entertainment.ie was live...

As were some other sites but the Irish web was far smaller then than it is now.

and none of them looked bad for their time, and none of them were built in FrontPage etc.

You seem to have only seen the web designs but not the websites (all those choices were database backed sites).

I've also never worked in a Print company, and never want to. I was always of the opinion that print designers can't design for web because thy don't understand it enough.

So based on your lack of knowledge of print design, you can extrapolate that to include all print designers?

Regards...jmcc

Mobile Website companies

Comments