Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mobile Website companies

Options
«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Moved from Development


  • Options
    #3
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


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


  • Options
    #4
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    smash wrote: »
    A mobile website is fairly easy.
    And that attitude is why many mobile Web sites are "poor quality".


  • Options
    #5
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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!


  • Options
    #6
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.


  • Options
    #8
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Options
    #9
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.


  • Options
    #10
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    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.


  • Options
    #11
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.


  • Options
    #13
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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?


  • Options
    #14
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.


  • Options
    #15
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    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.


  • Options
    #16
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Options
    #17
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.


  • Options
    #18
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Options
    #19
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.


  • Options
    #20
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    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.


  • Options
    #21
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    professore wrote: »
    I stand corrected. Wow that is intrusive.
    How so when you have to give it permission?


  • Options
    #23
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    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.


  • Options
    #24
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.


  • Options
    #25
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Options
    #26
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Options
    #27
    jmcc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭jmcc


    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


  • Options
    #28
    Feathers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Feathers


    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.


  • Options
    #29
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    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.


  • Options
    #30
    Freddio
    Registered Users Posts: 650 ✭✭✭Freddio


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Giblet
    Registered Users Posts: 11,979 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    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.


Advertisement