| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 03/05/2009 : 01:40:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Compatibility with different hardware
This is a minor consideration, but as people are increasingly using portable devices for browsing the Internet it may as well be born in mind. I mainly used my 'phone to visit this site (as I don't own a computer) and certain things are not possible on it.
I cannot create/update accolades on it due to the pop-ups like described above with certain computers' settings.
It is hard to score films (it often doesn't 'take' when I press the relevant bar) and impossible to flag them (it never does when I press the circle). It's not a size issue as I can zoom in.
The aforementioned risk of accidentally deleting an accolade etc. is also much higher (apart from the fact that as I cannot edit an accolade I am luckily less likely to be near the 'Delete' button).
I'm aware people are using portable devices increasingly for browsing the internet but this isn't to say they should be able to do everything they can on desktop or laptop on it. The very reason these devices are more portable than a desktop or laptop is because they're running on less-capable hardware and software- if this were not the case nobody would bother buying a proper computer. Likewise, I don't believe it should be expected that every function of the site be available on lesser devices- the technology (yes, even iPhones) simply isn't there yet. Scoring films I can see is something you would expect on a mobile phone and I'll be addressing this in the changes I'm making. Accolade creation however is not something I feel I should pile my efforts into making possible on a mobile phone.
Still, like you say, this is a minor consideration. More likely, I'll write special cut-down versions of the site for specific devices as and when I feel the demand is there. |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 02:30:31
|
Indeed, it is very much a minor thing.
However, I'm totally with Berners-Lee and against there being different versions of sites for different hardware. It's more a case of eliminating non-useful niggly things whenever this can be easily done.
As I said, the pop-ups previously stopped me being able to edit accolades even on a computer. (It's reasonable to assume that people will sometimes use computers they don't own and on which they therefore cannot change the settings.) And in general, I do find pop-ups to be a frustrating way of doing anything (as a user). So it's about whether accolades are benefitted in any way by functioning like that. Perhaps they are, but it's not as though search results have to be displayed in a separate window, as non-accolade searches aren't. I realise of course that now the accolade-making process has been set up it may be harder to change things than if it were being newly programmed -- I'm therefore guessing that that will be a more major reason for keeping pop-ups than that they are intrinsically preferable.
By the way, this issue isn't the only addition I have recently made to this thread. I've also added to the first page that thing about it slipping out of accolades if one is on one stage too long. I'm hoping that, and will be grateful if, you have been able to integrate some of the suggestions from this thread into your changes. None are essential but I think they are all good ideas. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/05/2009 02:40:53 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 08:50:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Indeed, it is very much a minor thing.
However, I'm totally with Berners-Lee and against there being different versions of sites for different hardware. It's more a case of eliminating non-useful niggly things whenever this can be easily done.
I don't recall Berners-Lee saying such a thing, however a quick trawl on the internet brought up this quote: "We're having to learn how to make information so that it will work, whether we're using it from a small device or a large one." (http://dotsub.com/view/c687c4fc-2825-45dd-9f04-659a386ce6e5) Personally, I take this as meaning content should be scaled up or down according to the capabilities of the medium it's being displayed on. He's not saying the small device has to do all the things the large one does, just the information should work for that device. If you truly believe every function of a website should be available on every device, you might want to start complaining to the BBC, Facebook, ebaY and countless others whilst you're at it.
quote:
As I said, the pop-ups previously stopped me being able to edit accolades even on a computer. (It's reasonable to assume that people will sometimes use computers they don't own and on which they therefore cannot change the settings.) And in general, I do find pop-ups to be a frustrating way of doing anything (as a user). So it's about whether accolades are benefitted in any way by functioning like that. Perhaps they are, but it's not as though search results have to be displayed in a separate window, as non-accolade searches aren't. I realise of course that now the accolade-making process has been set up it may be harder to change things than if it were being newly programmed -- I'm therefore guessing that that will be a more major reason for keeping pop-ups than that they are intrinsically preferable.
For results to be displayed in the same window without some hideous page reload (something search results achieve by doing this at point of loading), a technique called AJAX would be required. Oddly enough, this often makes the page LESS compatible with mobile devices. BTW, I'm amazed the iPhone can't handle multiple browser windows- is there no enhanced browser you can download?
quote:
By the way, this issue isn't the only addition I have recently made to this thread. I've also added to the first page that thing about it slipping out of accolades if one is on one stage too long. I'm hoping that, and will be grateful if, you have been able to integrate some of the suggestions from this thread into your changes. None are essential but I think they are all good ideas.
Okay- will take another look. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 09:41:09
|
He's said it, I'm almost absolutely totally sure, and I think that is what he means there, but I'll look it up later. And yes, I do hate those stupid websites -- "Aarghh, stop redirecting me automatically when I want to see the proper page!"
O.K. -- you've convinced me on the pop-ups. The iPhone is fine with creating multiple windows but the problem is that whenever one changes window (unless one is very quick or lucky) it tends to refresh the window one is moving to. It's one of its more annoying features. Am I right in thinking that the U.R.L. is the same for each stage of the accolade wiz? That's where it falls down.
Anyway, I've thought of something far more interesting. You know about iPhone apps, right? Well, people download loads and loads of them. How about writing one? I don't think they're hard as some have been done by children. There would be two possibilities: (i) a paid one (59p would be best) that would send people reviews like joke-a-day services or (ii) a free one that would be mainly for promoting the site. There are lots of film-related ones so iPhone owners are obviously into films. If you did a free one it could work such that they could submit reviews that got transferred to the site if that were easy to program, but if not it doesn't matter -- just sending out free reviews would be good publicity. (I realise that the submission version of this is sounding a bit like the special mobile version I have objected to, but it isn't really since one could still view the whole site too -- it'd be more like a reverse feed, I guess, or something.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/05/2009 09:55:33 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 09:59:19
|
This is in the ball park, but it's not what I remember -- I remember him specifically saying that when he's on his computer, 'phone or this, that and the other he wants to see the same versions of the same pages. I'll keep looking...
This is pretty much it, I think. The motivation is the same as the above (not wanting the Mobile Web to be restrictive) but he a few times says that it should be one ubiquitous web etc. So when I saw him say it before, he presumably had the same motivation (perhaps amongst others such as clean simplicity, as I assumed) but didn't mention it. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/05/2009 10:15:25 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 10:01:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Am I right in thinking that the U.R.L. is the same for each stage of the accolade wiz? That's where it falls down.
Yep.
quote:
Anyway, I've thought of something far more interesting. You know about iPhone apps, right? Well, people download loads and loads of them. How about writing one? I don't think they're hard as some have been done by children. There would be two possibilities: (i) a paid one (59p would be best) that would send people reviews like joke-a-day services or (ii) a free one that would be mainly for promoting the site. There are lots of film-related ones so iPhone owners are obviously into films. If you did a free one it could work such that they could submit reviews that got transferred to the site if that were easy to program, but if not it doesn't matter -- just sending out free reviews would be good publicity. (I realise that the submission version of this is sounding a bit like the special mobile version I have objected to, but it isn't really since one could still view the whole site too -- it'd be more like a reverse feed, I guess, or something.)
This is something I've considered but the biggest problem would be that, last time I checked, you need to own an Apple Mac to code for the iPhone. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 10:13:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
This is in the ball park, but it's not what I remember -- I remember him specifically saying that when he's on his computer, 'phone or this, that and the other he wants to see the same versions of the same pages. I'll keep looking...
I'd be really surprised if he actually said this. If he did, he's either been taken out of context, an idiot or he's living in some futuristic la-la land. The tech simply is not there and, as I said before, even companies with resources as sizeable as the BBC can't achieve identical experiences across the board.
What's more, different devices lend themselves to different functionality and uses better than others, e.g. the shake functionality of the iPhone which isn't supported by any other device. Why restrict the user by offering only the exact same interface and features regardless of device? Why not tailor the site to that device's strengths? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 10:18:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
This is something I've considered but the biggest problem would be that, last time I checked, you need to own an Apple Mac to code for the iPhone.
Well, who in their right mind wouldn't own a Mac (apart from poor people like me)? 
I expect that it can be worked around somehow. After all, the apps sync with iTunes which can be on a P.C. Or perhaps a F.W.F.R.er with a Mac could do it? |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/05/2009 10:30:15 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 10:29:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I'd be really surprised if he actually said this. If he did, he's either been taken out of context, an idiot or he's living in some futuristic la-la land. The tech simply is not there and, as I said before, even companies with resources as sizeable as the BBC can't achieve identical experiences across the board.
What's more, different devices lend themselves to different functionality and uses better than others, e.g. the shake functionality of the iPhone which isn't supported by any other device. Why restrict the user by offering only the exact same interface and features regardless of device? Why not tailor the site to that device's strengths?
I think it's probably just coming across as la-la-land because I'm explaining it badly. I'm really pretty sure I saw him say it (i.e. on T.V., not in print).
And, for a user like me at least, there really aren't big browsing differences on the computer or the iPhone. There are not that many of those annoying redirecting sites I mentioned. (E-mail websites would be the most likely, but I don't use them.) The main differences are things that could easily not exist if Apple wanted, i.e. to not have pages refresh automatically and to have Flash installed. And the way his point came across and that I agreed with was exactly that it is better if websites work the same on all devices, because it would be extremely annoying to have to have different mental maps of the same site. I don't know whether the shake thing can do anything with the Internet, but if it can it will only be equivalent to some button on a computer. That's not a different version of the site in the way we're talking about: it's just equivalent to keys being configured and labelled slightly differently on different makes.
I did prefer the iPhone Facebook app, but it wasn't because I preferred it on the 'phone -- I preferred it in general as it conveniently eliminated all the annoying features of Facebook. Consequently I looked at it only on the 'phone even if sitting at the computer. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/05/2009 10:32:55 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 10:56:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
This is something I've considered but the biggest problem would be that, last time I checked, you need to own an Apple Mac to code for the iPhone.
Well, who in their right mind wouldn't own a Mac (apart from poor people like me)?
You mean other than commercial developers (the majority of companies still use Unix or Windows backends to their systems) and serious gamers? I don't own a Mac because it does nothing my PC can't and can't do a fair few things I need for my working life. Still it looks pretty and it's easy to use which is enough for less tech-savvy folks. 
quote:
I expect that it can be worked around somehow. After all, the apps sync with iTunes which can be on a P.C. Or perhaps a F.W.F.R.er with a Mac could do it?
The problem isn't of the App Store synching with a PC, it's that Apple is so locked down against other systems getting in on the action that it hasn't actually bothered to write the compiler for anything other than Macs. You can see their logic- come up with a phone that everyone likes and then make it so you have to buy even more of their overpriced hardware in order to write something for it. They're not dumb, I'll say that much. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 11:04:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Still it looks pretty
Well, quite. That's the main point, isn't it? Have you seen the Simpsons 'Mapple' episode? It's very good.
I just favour Macs because publishing is always done on them, so that is all I'm used to other than the Internet/Word/Excel. All the publishing software can also be bought for P.C.s, of course, but I have no idea what the difference is to the user. I assume it's not a emperor's-new-clothes thing.
quote:
The problem isn't of the App Store synching with a PC, it's that Apple is so locked down against other systems getting in on the action that it hasn't actually bothered to write the compiler for anything other than Macs. You can see their logic- come up with a phone that everyone likes and then make it so you have to buy even more of their overpriced hardware in order to write something for it. They're not dumb, I'll say that much.
Yeah, as I don't even know what a compiler is I think it's safe to assume that you are right. Perhaps do something for the Googlephone instead, then. That's meant to be wide open to everything, isn't it? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 11:17:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I don't know whether the shake thing can do anything with the Internet, but if it can it will only be equivalent to some button on a computer. That's not a different version of the site in the way we're talking about: it's just equivalent to keys being configured and labelled slightly differently on different makes.
I couldn't say one way or the other conclusively if the shake thing could be used beyond a key press replacement- who knows what someone could be thinking up right now- but my point was that this is a feature of the iPhone that could conceivably offer extra functionality for iPhone users alone.
A better example might be touch screen combined with bluetooth to send a fwfr from one iPhone to another with a flick of the finger- it simply wouldn't work on a desktop computer.
Back on the desktop, you might not want as thorough a list of search results on a mobile device as you would a desktop, not just because of screen space but also when you're on the go you want data quicker, rather than sitting down and taking the time to read something more considered as you might at home.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I did prefer the iPhone Facebook app, but it wasn't because I preferred it on the 'phone -- I preferred it in general as it conveniently eliminated all the annoying features of Facebook. Consequently I looked at it only on the 'phone even if sitting at the computer.
Precisely- they removed features for the mobile version of the site, which better tailored it to the reduced spec of the hardware. Had the site been the same as the full version, it simply wouldn't work as well on the iPhone. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/05/2009 : 21:39:29
|
My point about the Facebook app was that I preferred it to the standard Facebook on the computer, not just on the 'phone. It was nothing to do with there being a lack of space, but to do with avoiding the many pointless things on the main site. Now that I don't have it (long story), I use the normal Facebook and it's mainly fine. (Facebook is a very heavy site and so it does sometimes cause it to crash, but I think they should tidy it up in general, not just have a tidied version for 'phones. In contrast, this site is very clean and there is never the slightest problem in terms of ordinary navigation etc. etc.)
Let's assume that the fancy movement stuff you suggest would be possible and wanted by some people -- it still doesn't interest me at all. I want this site to work exactly the same here (in bed) as on the computer in the other room. I want to see the same volume of material and do. The screen size really isn't a problem, as moving around the page and zooming in is so easy and thus quickly unconscious. The only real bugs are those things I mentioned (apart from things that are not related to the site such as not being able to copy and paste). So I'm not saying that other people shouldn't want ten different versions of the same thing, but that's definitely not what I favour. (Incidentally, I now seem to recall that Berners-Lee gave .mobi as an example of going in the wrong direction.)
Anyway, this is all by the by. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/05/2009 22:33:17 |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Functional suggestions/Unity of the World Wide Web
