| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/20/2008 : 03:51:49
Let's maintain a thread for suggestions as to improving functionality (i.e. not approvability of reviews or programming glitches). |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 01:21:31
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Once again... please please please show me this transcript! I'd love to see Berners-Lee say something this dumb.
You'll have to trust me. I cannot magic up a transcript of something I saw on television. It was something along those lines. It may have been different in some marginal way that makes a big difference to programming, but I'll be precise about programming just as soon as you use correct punctuation. 
Aren't there two possibilities within the wishy-washy stuff that you are talking about? One is things that iPlayer, but isn't another to have a site that is optimised differently according to the device but which looks exactly the same regardless? Perhaps that's what he meant.
"Something along those lines"... "perhaps that's what he meant"... I'll trust you when I see it, if I'm honest. The man would have to be a blithering idiot to have said this so I'll not hold my breath on it turning up.
It's not about precision of describing programming, it's about understanding what the man said, which clearly you did not by the way you repeatedly told me Tim Berners-Lee says I should make Accolades work on the iPhone. He is actually talking about adapting the content of a website according to the device it's being viewed on. This isn't even just about making the site look better or load faster depending on the device, it's also taking into consideration some people browse the web via braille or spoken web browsers. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 01:11:01
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
not that this has any bearing on what we were discussing anyway. The point is even Berners-Lee supports appropriately formatting content to the device in question.
As I've already made clear, I didn't appreciate to start with the difference between differentiated formatting to different devices and sites with different U.R.L.s. The latter was what I was discussing, which he obviously does object to if he objects to the .mobi domain.
Oh sorry... I've apparently missed the bit in the thread where you said fwfr should not use a .mobi domain extension. I thought we were talking about whether all fwfr features should be available on all devices, which even Tim Berners-Lee states they shouldn't necessarily. Now we've established what we're really talking about, we can all agree using .mobi is a dumb idea and that I can go back to not worrying about implementing Accolade editing on the iPhone. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 01:05:07
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Once again... please please please show me this transcript! I'd love to see Berners-Lee say something this dumb.
You'll have to trust me. I cannot magic up a transcript of something I saw on television. It was something along those lines. It may have been different in some marginal way that makes a big difference to programming, but I'll be precise about programming just as soon as you use correct punctuation.
Aren't there two possibilities within the wishy-washy stuff that you are talking about? One is things that iPlayer, but isn't another to have a site that is optimised differently according to the device but which looks exactly the same regardless? Perhaps that's what he meant. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 01:00:01
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
One domain extension that is smart enough to change the content according to the device requesting the data is what I'm talking about.
Well, it wasn't what I was talking about. Still, like I've said, I'm not too bothered about this either -- undifferentiated sites work fine on the 'phone. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 00:58:10
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
That "wishy-washy stuff" is the important bit. As you say, this is the process of the server sending different formats to different devices and it *should* be of interest as it's what I've been saying should be done and you've said shouldn't for the last couple of pages.
Yes, yes, fascinating I'm sure. As I've said, I've already clarified what I meant and it wasn't this. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 00:56:35
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
not that this has any bearing on what we were discussing anyway. The point is even Berners-Lee supports appropriately formatting content to the device in question.
As I've already made clear, I didn't appreciate to start with the difference between differentiated formatting to different devices and sites with different U.R.L.s. The latter was what I was discussing, which he obviously does object to if he objects to the .mobi domain. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 00:53:14
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I don't know any web developers who don't scale and compress images with download time in mind.
Lots of sites are not designed by full-time professional developers -- those are the kind that are the problem. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/12/2009 : 00:51:13
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
This is probably because the sites you're talking about have been optimised to work on your iPhone. A very good example of this I just thought of (probably because I had a play around on it after work tonight) is BBC iPlayer. The choice of programmes on the first page on a mobile device is considerably less than on the standard iPlayer, not to mention the video has been transcoded to a lower quality based on not just your device but also the speed of your internet connection.
I can tell the difference between sites that have been changed for the 'phone, you know. Yes, iPlayer is one and I have used it. I can see that it's useful for video-based sites to have special versions, although I'm not desperate for them to. However, no, that was not the kind of site I was talking about. I was talking about sites like this, normal Yahoo! and normal Facebook. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/06/2009 : 01:47:09
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I've not read much of this but it fits with what I saw him say. The other wishy-washy stuff about websites magically sending different formats to different devices is beyond my understanding or interest.
That "wishy-washy stuff" is the important bit. As you say, this is the process of the server sending different formats to different devices and it *should* be of interest as it's what I've been saying should be done and you've said shouldn't for the last couple of pages.
quote:
"This domain [.mobi] will have a drastically detrimental effect on the Web. By partitioning the HTTP information space into parts designed for access from mobile access and parts designed (presumably) not for such access, an essential property of the Web is destroyed."
I realise this doesn't contradict what you quoted, but this is what I remember him saying.
Exactly- this is another matter entirely. One domain extension for one type of device and then a different one for another is just stupid. One domain extension that is smart enough to change the content according to the device requesting the data is what I'm talking about.
quote:
He also said something along the lines of "I want a website to be the same when I view it at home, in the office, on my mobile, wherever."
Once again... please please please show me this transcript! I'd love to see Berners-Lee say something this dumb. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/06/2009 : 01:28:52
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Nothing takes more than a few seconds that I have used, except when the 'phone cannot get at least 3G.
This is probably because the sites you're talking about have been optimised to work on your iPhone. A very good example of this I just thought of (probably because I had a play around on it after work tonight) is BBC iPlayer. The choice of programmes on the first page on a mobile device is considerably less than on the standard iPlayer, not to mention the video has been transcoded to a lower quality based on not just your device but also the speed of your internet connection.
quote:
Anyway, how long is the typical period between the top-end technology (especially 'phones) having certain characteristics and the bottom-end versions getting them? Not long, I would say. Two or three years? There's no sense in developing versions of the WWW for only that long.
Two or three years is a very long time in technology and certainly long enough to warrant redeveloping a website. In fact, often websites (fwfr excepted due to the limited size of the development department) are continually changing. The holy grail of programming is a seamless transition from an old system to a new one where the experience for the user is exactly the same- the difference is often one of either speed or with a mind to implementing future requirements before anyone actually knows what they are- for example, making it work on the latest devices. Most companies I've worked at have given their websites a major dusting off at least every two years however.
quote:
This is part of the massive problem of greater computing power just getting absorbed by heavier programming rather than allowing super-fast use. Images that are there for decoration are often of a much higher resolution than they need to be. For everyone's benefit, whatever machine, there should be a lot more focus on efficiency. Scrap annoying Flash intros for a start -- I don't want to have to skip you, I want to know what you are doing there in the first place.
I agree (huzzah!), although I have to add that I don't know any web developers who don't scale and compress images with download time in mind. Flash is one of the worst aspects of the internet- it's often the equivalent of sprinkling glitter on a turd. Sadly, a lot of people who have a say in what goes on their website are bloody idiots.
quote:
He must be making a distinction between actually separate types of website and the same U.R.L. just being sent through differently on different devices.
Hmm... I didn't get that impression from that speech at all, not that this has any bearing on what we were discussing anyway. The point is even Berners-Lee supports appropriately formatting content to the device in question. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/06/2009 : 01:04:37
I've not read much of this but it fits with what I saw him say. The other wishy-washy stuff about websites magically sending different formats to different devices is beyond my understanding or interest.
"This domain [.mobi] will have a drastically detrimental effect on the Web. By partitioning the HTTP information space into parts designed for access from mobile access and parts designed (presumably) not for such access, an essential property of the Web is destroyed."
I realise this doesn't contradict what you quoted, but this is what I remember him saying. He also said something along the lines of "I want a website to be the same when I view it at home, in the office, on my mobile, wherever." |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/06/2009 : 00:55:19
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
It's not speculation- it's common sense. What would you rather have? A website not designed with a mobile phone in mind that takes minutes to download and requires scrolling around to get to things or the information you're after in seconds?
Nothing takes more than a few seconds that I have used, except when the 'phone cannot get at least 3G.
quote:
Last time I checked you had to pay a minimum of �45 a month to get the iPhone free. If you don't think that's expensive then no wonder you can't afford a proper computer  To put this in context, I pay �30 a month and my wife has wangled �15!
Yeah, I did simplify slightly. I pay �35 a month now but paid �45 to start with. However, my old bill always ended up being at least �45 as I had to ring a lot of 0870 numbers etc. Now I use the Internet for those inquiries instead.
Anyway, how long is the typical period between the top-end technology (especially 'phones) having certain characteristics and the bottom-end versions getting them? Not long, I would say. Two or three years? There's no sense in developing versions of the WWW for only that long.
quote:
I'd say images are generally on a website for the same reason you like Macs- because it looks pretty. Sure, we'd all like the images on the mobile version too, but if it makes the poor thing clunk then they should be dropped. This isn't to say the non-mobile site users should have to look at a less pretty site though.
This is part of the massive problem of greater computing power just getting absorbed by heavier programming rather than allowing super-fast use. Images that are there for decoration are often of a much higher resolution than they need to be. For everyone's benefit, whatever machine, there should be a lot more focus on efficiency. Scrap annoying Flash intros for a start -- I don't want to have to skip you, I want to know what you are doing there in the first place.
quote:
Well, I'm glad to say I appear to be on the same page as Berners-Lee although I'm not seeing how you are. Here's a nice little quote which has considerable similarities to what I've been banging on about over the course of this thread:
"It (the Mobile Web Initiative) recommends finding out what device you are talking to if you can, and sending appropriately formatted content. Some phone browsers set out to be able to provide access to virtually any Web page, but technical limitation on other phones make this impossible."
In summary... find out what you're sending your website to and then format the content as would best fit it, taking into consideration it's technical limitations. I realise this isn't in the spirit of the everyone-is-equal web but unfortunately we're not yet living in this future utopia where we use nearby objects as screens for our mobile devices that he goes on to suggest.
Admittedly I only skimmed through it but there were several things that chimed with what I had seen him say elsewhere. I'll fish them out later. He must be making a distinction between actually separate types of website and the same U.R.L. just being sent through differently on different devices. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/06/2009 : 00:37:05
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Well, either of us can idly speculate about what unknown masses would and would rather have, but iPhone sales are objective.
It's not speculation- it's common sense. What would you rather have? A website not designed with a mobile phone in mind that takes minutes to download and requires scrolling around to get to things or the information you're after in seconds?
quote:
It's not that expensive now anyway. I pay the same per month as with my previous 'phone and the handset was free. Eighteen-month contract is all, which is fine by me. I don't find it slow either, but that may be because my flatmate's computer (a P.C.) that I sometimes use is very slow. I imagine that image-heavy sites would be a bit slow, but if the images are central who who would want a version without them, and if they're not what are they doing there?
Last time I checked you had to pay a minimum of �45 a month to get the iPhone free. If you don't think that's expensive then no wonder you can't afford a proper computer To put this in context, I pay �30 a month and my wife has wangled �15!
I'd say images are generally on a website for the same reason you like Macs- because it looks pretty. Sure, we'd all like the images on the mobile version too, but if it makes the poor thing clunk then they should be dropped. This isn't to say the non-mobile site users should have to look at a less pretty site though.
quote:
The second link I posted is good enough. Having a unified web isn't the focus of his piece (speech?) in itself, but it's touched on a few times as part of preventing the impingement that he is talking about.
Well, I'm glad to say I appear to be on the same page as Berners-Lee although I'm not seeing how you are. Here's a nice little quote which has considerable similarities to what I've been banging on about over the course of this thread:
"It (the Mobile Web Initiative) recommends finding out what device you are talking to if you can, and sending appropriately formatted content. Some phone browsers set out to be able to provide access to virtually any Web page, but technical limitation on other phones make this impossible."
In summary... find out what you're sending your website to and then format the content as would best fit it, taking into consideration it's technical limitations. I realise this isn't in the spirit of the everyone-is-equal web but unfortunately we're not yet living in this future utopia where we use nearby objects as screens for our mobile devices that he goes on to suggest.
quote:
Given that I am able to do things like apply for a job during the intermission of a film, it'll do me.
Glad to hear it- I just hope you're not applying for any UI development jobs |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/06/2009 : 00:02:56
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Well those are all your opinions but I generally don't agree. I very much believe you should try and scale down quantity of content for a smaller, less-capable device. Not everyone has the money to blow on an iPhone so the scrolling around full-blown content isn't necessarily an option for them. I also believe your average punter wants to use their mobile phone for small quick hits of data and not for reading through volumes of content. If you're not doing this, you're going to irritate a lot of mobile folks very quickly.
Well, either of us can idly speculate about what unknown masses would and would rather have, but iPhone sales are objective. It's not that expensive now anyway. I pay the same per month as with my previous 'phone and the handset was free. Eighteen-month contract is all, which is fine by me. I don't find it slow either, but that may be because my flatmate's computer (a P.C.) that I sometimes use is very slow. I imagine that image-heavy sites would be a bit slow, but if the images are central who who would want a version without them, and if they're not what are they doing there?
quote:
I really do wish you'd hurry up and produce this article where Tim Berners-Lee says mobile users want to spend minutes of their lives waiting for graphics-heavy, lengthy content to download on their tiny little screens and then scroll endlessly through it trying to find what they're after. Sure, it'll come one day when we have holographic screens projected on to our retinas and T1 connections wired into our bonces but that's still a long way off and web developers need to respect that right now.
The second link I posted is good enough. Having a unified web isn't the focus of his piece (speech?) in itself, but it's touched on a few times as part of preventing the impingement that he is talking about.
I promise that I'm not making this up -- the size of the screen and manoeuvring around it is absolutely fine. I grant you that it may be harder with unfamiliar sites that are laid out very strangely, but I'm only guessing and no one goes on unfamiliar sites that much because they soon become familiar.
Given that I am able to do things like apply for a job during the intermission of a film, it'll do me. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 23:40:09
Well those are all your opinions but I generally don't agree. I very much believe you should try and scale down quantity of content for a smaller, less-capable device. Not everyone has the money to blow on an iPhone so the scrolling around full-blown content isn't necessarily an option for them. I also believe your average punter wants to use their mobile phone for small quick hits of data and not for reading through volumes of content. If you're not doing this, you're going to irritate a lot of mobile folks very quickly.
I really do wish you'd hurry up and produce this article where Tim Berners-Lee says mobile users want to spend minutes of their lives waiting for graphics-heavy, lengthy content to download on their tiny little screens and then scroll endlessly through it trying to find what they're after. Sure, it'll come one day when we have holographic screens projected on to our retinas and T1 connections wired into our bonces but that's still a long way off and web developers need to respect that right now. |
|
|
