This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > August 2006 > Should we be building sites that work at (say) 240 pixels width? (For mobile phones...)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Should we be building sites that work at (say) 240 pixels width? (For mobile phones...)
|
|
|
| Hi
Do you think we need to start designing our websites for mobile phones
yet?
For example someone (SpaceGirl, I think) was recommending this phone
"Sony Ericsson K800i"
http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp...m=pp1&pid=10407
The phone sounds extremely groovy (with 384kb/ps broadband internet and
a decent web rowser & JavaVM... etc) but I notice it's screen
resolution is only 240 x 320 pixel!
Now, there is no way that we're going to do a WAP website, but is there
now a gathering case from building HTML pages that work at 240 pixels
width??!
We are extremely reluctant to have TWO versions of the the site at once
simply because we don't want to have two copies of everything - i.e.
with twice the effort and errors bound to creep in!
Our website had 29 visitors with 240x320 resolution, plus 20 visitors
at 320x240 [is that really the same thing, anyone??]... i.e. total of
49 visits, made by 39 unique users, making 107 page impressions...
Okay that's currently still less than 1% (more like 0.75% in fact),
but...
I dont think we'll be able to ignore mobile phones very much longer...
So where do you guys see the future going within the next 18 months or
so?
Ship
Shiperton Henethe
P.S. *OR* do you think we should evolve our sites to work at more than
800 pixels width?
My boss LOVES wide screen designs, but I talked him out of going wider
than 720 pixels width, because currently about 10% (9.9%) of our users
are viewing at 800x600.
| |
| Paul Watt 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
|
"ship" <shiphen@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:1154278745.235521.76720@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
>
> Do you think we need to start designing our websites for mobile phones
> yet?
>
> For example someone (SpaceGirl, I think) was recommending this phone
> "Sony Ericsson K800i"
> http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp...m=pp1&pid=10407
>
> The phone sounds extremely groovy (with 384kb/ps broadband internet and
> a decent web rowser & JavaVM... etc) but I notice it's screen
> resolution is only 240 x 320 pixel!
> Now, there is no way that we're going to do a WAP website, but is there
> now a gathering case from building HTML pages that work at 240 pixels
> width??!
>
> We are extremely reluctant to have TWO versions of the the site at once
> simply because we don't want to have two copies of everything - i.e.
> with twice the effort and errors bound to creep in!
>
> Our website had 29 visitors with 240x320 resolution, plus 20 visitors
> at 320x240 [is that really the same thing, anyone??]... i.e. total of
> 49 visits, made by 39 unique users, making 107 page impressions...
>
> Okay that's currently still less than 1% (more like 0.75% in fact),
> but...
> I dont think we'll be able to ignore mobile phones very much longer...
> So where do you guys see the future going within the next 18 months or
> so?
>
>
> Ship
> Shiperton Henethe
>
> P.S. *OR* do you think we should evolve our sites to work at more than
> 800 pixels width?
> My boss LOVES wide screen designs, but I talked him out of going wider
> than 720 pixels width, because currently about 10% (9.9%) of our users
> are viewing at 800x600.
>
You should really be designing for ANY resolution. Using percentages instead
of fixed px sizes for layout and avoiding any unecessary big images.
--
Cheers
Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info
| |
| sir robert blake 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| "ship" <shiphen@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote
>
> Do you think we need to start designing our websites for mobile phones
> yet?
>
mobile phone users do my head in.
I would suggest that we don't encourage them.
In fact, on the contrary, we need to actively discourage mobile phone use.
We need some promotional campaigns...eg mobiles cause accidents, mobiles
piss other train/taxi.bus/coach users off, big time; mobile networks offer
zero privacy; only dicks use mobiles, mobiles cause loss of brain cell
matter, etc, etc.
On occasion I have been sat on a bus, in the vicinity of a mobile
user....and after sitting in on about 6 or 7 of his calls i am so fed up
hearing the shite talk, that there is a very distinct danger of me grabbing
the phone off him and stuffing it up his bloody XXX.
| |
|
| ship wrote:
> Hi
>
> Do you think we need to start designing our websites for mobile phones
> yet?
Depends what you call designing for mobile phones :-)
> For example someone (SpaceGirl, I think) was recommending this phone
> "Sony Ericsson K800i"
> http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp...m=pp1&pid=10407
>
> The phone sounds extremely groovy (with 384kb/ps broadband internet and
> a decent web rowser & JavaVM... etc) but I notice it's screen
> resolution is only 240 x 320 pixel!
That's more than I have on my phone!
> Now, there is no way that we're going to do a WAP website, but is there
> now a gathering case from building HTML pages that work at 240 pixels
> width??!
I don't think a phone screen does exactly the same as a computer
screen. I expect different columns to be ordered vertically instead of
horizontally on small phones, but I must admit that's just my
expectation, I haven't tested this on any other phone than my own,
which has a very small screen.
> We are extremely reluctant to have TWO versions of the the site at once
> simply because we don't want to have two copies of everything - i.e.
> with twice the effort and errors bound to creep in!
I don't think there is any need to have two. Just make one that works
for everything.
> Our website had 29 visitors with 240x320 resolution, plus 20 visitors
> at 320x240 [is that really the same thing, anyone??]...
No, it isn't. Some phones have their screen in landscape, others in
portrait mode.
> i.e. total of
> 49 visits, made by 39 unique users, making 107 page impressions...
Those numbers will rise :-)
> Okay that's currently still less than 1% (more like 0.75% in fact),
> but...
> I dont think we'll be able to ignore mobile phones very much longer...
> So where do you guys see the future going within the next 18 months or
> so?
The future is bright, the future is...
(oops, SCNR :-) )
> P.S. *OR* do you think we should evolve our sites to work at more than
> 800 pixels width?
> My boss LOVES wide screen designs, but I talked him out of going wider
> than 720 pixels width, because currently about 10% (9.9%) of our users
> are viewing at 800x600.
Show your boss this page:
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Eric Jarvis 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| ship shiphen@XXXXXXXXXX wrote in
<1154278745.235521.76720@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
> Hi
>
> Do you think we need to start designing our websites for mobile phones
> yet?
>
No.
We should have been doing so for several years, especially anyone who
hasn't entirely been aiming at a US audience.
> For example someone (SpaceGirl, I think) was recommending this phone
> "Sony Ericsson K800i"
> http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp...m=pp1&pid=10407
>
> The phone sounds extremely groovy (with 384kb/ps broadband internet and
> a decent web rowser & JavaVM... etc) but I notice it's screen
> resolution is only 240 x 320 pixel!
> Now, there is no way that we're going to do a WAP website, but is there
> now a gathering case from building HTML pages that work at 240 pixels
> width??!
>
This is why it's foolish to concentrate on making sites for current
technology. The case for making sites accessible for web enabled mobile
phones was pretty solid by 2001. WAP was never really going to be more
than a temporary kludge. So I started looking at how to make sites "fold"
to around 240 pixels width back then. It took a while to come up with some
basic techniques that work, at least in the range of circumstances I was
expecting to face back then, but by the end of 2002 the main site I was
working on was able to be reasonable effectively accessed with an html
enabled mobile. Something I didn't actually get my hands on until late
last year.
> We are extremely reluctant to have TWO versions of the the site at once
> simply because we don't want to have two copies of everything - i.e.
> with twice the effort and errors bound to creep in!
>
If it isn't possible to create a single site that works across the range
then there's a strong case for using a dynamic site that feeds into two or
more templates. Certainly tow separate sites isn't a good option.
> Our website had 29 visitors with 240x320 resolution, plus 20 visitors
> at 320x240 [is that really the same thing, anyone??]... i.e. total of
> 49 visits, made by 39 unique users, making 107 page impressions...
>
> Okay that's currently still less than 1% (more like 0.75% in fact),
> but...
> I dont think we'll be able to ignore mobile phones very much longer...
> So where do you guys see the future going within the next 18 months or
> so?
>
Getting healthy enough to get back to work. I may also start dabbling with
PHP and playing around with PERL some more.
In terms of new technologies I guess my main priority will be getting
comfortable with XML, and learning about .Net.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
| David Dorward 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| sir robert blake wrote:
[color=darkred]
> On occasion I have been sat on a bus, in the vicinity of a mobile
> user....and after sitting in on about 6 or 7 of his calls i am so fed up
> hearing the shite talk, that there is a very distinct danger of me
> grabbing the phone off him and stuffing it up his bloody XXX.
Thankfully, most people don't need to talk in order to read websites on
mobile devices.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
| |
| sir robert blake 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| David Dorward <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in news:eaiufb$5j2$1$8302bc10
@news.demon.co.uk:
> sir robert blake wrote:
>
>
> Thankfully, most people don't need to talk in order to read websites on
> mobile devices.
based on my own experiments, mobile phone users are incapable of doing
anything without feeling that they need to tell the world about it.
| |
| William Tasso 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
ship <shiphen@XXXXXXXXXX> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
> Hi
How do you do?
> Do you think we need to start designing our websites for mobile phones=
> yet?
If you only just started you have some catching up to do.
> For example someone (SpaceGirl, I think) was recommending this phone
> "Sony Ericsson K800i"
> http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp...ver=3D4001&tem=
plate=3Dpp1_1_1&zone=3Dpp&lm=3Dpp1&pid=3D10407
tis but one of many
> The phone sounds extremely groovy (with 384kb/ps broadband internet
service dependent?
> and
> a decent web rowser & JavaVM... etc) but I notice it's screen
> resolution is only 240 x 320 pixel!
> Now, there is no way that we're going to do a WAP website, but is ther=
e
> now a gathering case from building HTML pages that work at 240 pixels
> width??!
the case has been gathered in, the barn dances are history and the band =
=
are on the road to the next gig.
> We are extremely reluctant to have TWO versions of the the site at onc=
e
> simply because we don't want to have two copies of everything - i.e.
> with twice the effort and errors bound to creep in!
Have you experimented with CSS for handheld devices?
Start by losing all the shite that's infill for big screens and there's =
=
usually little else to do, perhaps make lists vertical rather than =
horizontal, maybe lose some background images that don't qualify as more=
=
than eye-candy.
> Our website had 29 visitors with 240x320 resolution, plus 20 visitors
> at 320x240 [is that really the same thing, anyone??]... i.e. total of=
> 49 visits, made by 39 unique users, making 107 page impressions...
Nope - like Els said, some are portrait, others landscape.
> Okay that's currently still less than 1% (more like 0.75% in fact),
> but...
> I dont think we'll be able to ignore mobile phones very much longer...=
don't think mobile phones - think handheld devices.
> So where do you guys see the future going within the next 18 months or=
> so?
the future is a coming in - Old Canute would be proud.
> Ship
> Shiperton Henethe
>
> P.S. *OR* do you think we should evolve our sites to work at more than=
> 800 pixels width?
either? or? KISS
> My boss LOVES wide screen designs, but I talked him out of going wider=
> than 720 pixels width, because currently about 10% (9.9%) of our users=
> are viewing at 800x600.
Your boss should stick to what he knows best.
-- =
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
| William Tasso 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| Fleeing from the madness of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! jungle
sir robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
> ...
> On occasion I have been sat on a bus, in the vicinity of a mobile
> user....and after sitting in on about 6 or 7 of his calls i am so fed up
when one travels in a cattle truck one shouldn't be surprised at the smell.
> hearing the shite talk, that there is a very distinct danger of me
> grabbing
> the phone off him and stuffing it up his bloody XXX.
So much hate for such an inconsequential event?
--
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
|
| Can you not just run a browser detection script, and load up a
different css file ( if you have one ) to deliver the appropriate
layout ??
Mark.
| |
|
| Maxx wrote:
> Can you not just run a browser detection script, and load up a
> different css file ( if you have one ) to deliver the appropriate
> layout ??
No idea what you are replying to, but how would you detect the
browser? IE is the only browser that can be reliably detected, but
that's by means of conditional comments, not script.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
|
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:43:57 +0100, Eric Jarvis
<eric@ericjarvis.co.uk> scrawled:
>
> Getting healthy enough to get back to work.
Excellent news!
--
MGW (Note: my Hotmail address is seldom checked)
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. - Douglas Hofstadter
| |
|
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:58:57 +0100, "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> scrawled:
> Fleeing from the madness of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! jungle
> sir robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>
>
> when one travels in a cattle truck one shouldn't be surprised at the smell.
>
>
> So much hate for such an inconsequential event?
It's inconsequential when it lasts less than an hour. OTOH, the last
time we took a 5 hour train ride, we were stuck across the aisle
(couldn't move because the train was full) from a young lady who had
the exact same conversation at least 6 times with her various friends,
for virtually the entire 5 hours. It was enough to tempt us to swear
off train travel.
--
MGW (Note: my Hotmail address is seldom checked)
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. - Douglas Hofstadter
| |
|
| William Tasso wrote:
>
> Have you experimented with CSS for handheld devices?
>
> Start by losing all the shite that's infill for big screens and
> there's
> usually little else to do, perhaps make lists vertical rather than
> horizontal, maybe lose some background images that don't qualify as
> more
> than eye-candy.
Yup, just another CSS file:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html#media-types
If the site's build is logical and build to content rather then to design,
it will be quit easy.
So, no, don't code for 240px. Don't code for 720px/800px. Code for all
widths, and also leave my default font-size be, thank you.
Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus
| |
| sir robert blake 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.tdipsjy3m9g4qz-
wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> So much hate for such an inconsequential event?
>
one imagines that you don't run across such everyday occurences in your 4
by 4, Sir William
;)
| |
| sir robert blake 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| MGW <mgw1979@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ie5qc2tsft8umm86ivav1rp2272v0umngo@
4ax.com:
> the last
> time we took a 5 hour train ride, we were stuck across the aisle
> (couldn't move because the train was full) from a young lady who had
> the exact same conversation at least 6 times with her various friends,
> for virtually the entire 5 hours. It was enough to tempt us to swear
> off train travel.
>
i had a very similar experience MGW about 2 years ago.
I had just flown back from the caribbean to london. And i caught a bus up
to birmingham. The bus was empty, save for maybe 10 people. I sat near
the back, and there was only one perosn closeby. He was in his late 20s,
early 30s.
Anyways, although he was a row or two away, and on the other aisle, I had
to listen (along with the rest of the bus) to this person's reflections on
his golfing holiday......and he must have rang 6 or 7 of his mates, and
went over the same mindless shite again and again and again. I looked
around each time he dialled someone new. I was fot to reach for him and
his bleedin phone. Many of these people have no consideration at all for
other folks in their vicinity.
And why is it that mobile phone users tend to talk loudly when they are on
their phone.
| |
|
| Maxx wrote:
> Can you not just run a browser detection script, and load up a
> different css file ( if you have one ) to deliver the appropriate
> layout ??
No, let the apparatus decide wether it's a screen medium, or handheld (or
projection, or print, or braille...)
Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus
| |
| William Tasso 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| Fleeing from the madness of the EasyNews, UseNet made Easy! jungle
sir robert blake <4444D@yahoo.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
> "William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in news:op.tdipsjy3m9g4qz-
> wnt@tbdata.com:
>
>
> one imagines that you don't run across such everyday occurences in your 4
> by 4, Sir William
>
> ;)
The more I know about people, the more I love my ....
.... Oh, choose your own, dear reader - you know what I mean or you
wouldn't be here.
--
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
| William Tasso 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
Maxx <info@fashion-electronics.co.uk> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
> Can you not just run a browser detection script,
Not before hades freezes over - life is too short.
> and load up a
> different css file ( if you have one ) to deliver the appropriate
> layout ??
UAs tend to know what type of device they are running on/as - let them do
the work of deciding which stylesheets to pull - if any.
--
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
| Karl Groves 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| "Paul Watt" <paulio@wattio.NOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:4j486pF639jdU1@individual.net:
>
> You should really be designing for ANY resolution. Using percentages
> instead of fixed px sizes for layout and avoiding any unecessary big
> images.
Physician, heal thyself.
www.paulwatt.info
..wrapper{
width: 770px;
--
Karl Groves
www.karlcore.com
| |
| William Tasso 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| Fleeing from the madness of the www.tudelft.nl jungle
Rik <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
> William Tasso wrote:
>
> Yup, just another CSS file:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html#media-types
>
> If the site's build is logical and build to content rather then to
> design,
> it will be quit easy.
It is - till you realise that some (a lot of?) handheld UAs have
rudimentary support for HTML & CSS - compounded by the fact that h/h users
(especially phones) are less likely to upgrade their browser.
make it easy to use and they will come. For example, on my phone I can
scroll up/down with a wheel, horizontal scrolling is a pita and requires a
pointy thingie.
--
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
| Toby Inkster 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| Els wrote:
> ship wrote:
>
>
> That's more than I have on my phone!
Indeed, 240x320 is very high for a mobile phone. Mine's 208x208, which is
probably about average for its age (about 9 months). Phones at 128x128 can
still be found.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
| Eric Jarvis 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| Maxx info@fashion-electronics.co.uk wrote in
<1154290588.195361.196740@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
> Can you not just run a browser detection script, and load up a
> different css file ( if you have one ) to deliver the appropriate
> layout ??
>
It's a poor choice, there are no reliable browser detection scripts.
Better to just set different stylesheets for different media.
Build the page so that it "folds" into a logical sequence as the browser
window becomes narrow, and if all else fails offer a text only version
link in the top left corner.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
| Eric Jarvis 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| William Tasso SpamBlocked@tbdata.com wrote in <op.tdiwtbzxm9g4qz-
wnt@tbdata.com>:
> Fleeing from the madness of the www.tudelft.nl jungle
> Rik <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>
>
> It is - till you realise that some (a lot of?) handheld UAs have
> rudimentary support for HTML & CSS - compounded by the fact that h/h users
> (especially phones) are less likely to upgrade their browser.
>
> make it easy to use and they will come. For example, on my phone I can
> scroll up/down with a wheel, horizontal scrolling is a pita and requires a
> pointy thingie.
>
Whereas on mine I can scroll equally well vertically or horizontally.
We are all going to end up having as many mobile phones as we have
browsers to test in, aren't we? :(
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
| |
| Chaddy2222 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
|
William Tasso wrote:
> Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
> Maxx <info@fashion-electronics.co.uk> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>
>
> Not before hades freezes over - life is too short.
>
>
> UAs tend to know what type of device they are running on/as - let them do
> the work of deciding which stylesheets to pull - if any.
Yes, I tend to agree.
Although you can do some pritty niffty stuff with Server Side Scripting
and CSS (changeing the stylesheets layout etc etc, items such as colour
scheme etc).
Although, that can get a bit anoying when people start to go overboard.
My Universities website does this (changes it's stylesheet every few
hours) I mean, though the body color stays the same, but they tend to
change the navigation colours slightly.
Check it out for yourself http://www.deakin.edu.au
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
|
| Toby Inkster wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> Indeed, 240x320 is very high for a mobile phone. Mine's 208x208, which is
> probably about average for its age (about 9 months). Phones at 128x128 can
> still be found.
Mine only has 101 x 80...
Still HTML capable, and it does some CSS too.
I even downloaded the Opera mini-browser on it a little while ago.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Paul Watt 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
|
"Karl Groves" <karl@NOSPAMkarlcore.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9810BBBCD8A17karlkarlcorecom@216.196.97.136...
> "Paul Watt" <paulio@wattio.NOSPAMfreeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> news:4j486pF639jdU1@individual.net:
>
>
> Physician, heal thyself.
>
> www.paulwatt.info
>
> .wrapper{
> width: 770px;
>
>
>
Yeah yeah, guilty as charged
--
Cheers
Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info
| |
| Andy Dingley 2006-08-02, 11:39 am |
| ship wrote:
> Do you think we need to start designing our websites for mobile phones
> yet?
Why haven't you been doing it for the last 5 years (at least) ?
This isn't a "mobile phones" issue, it's a general accessibility issue.
The techniques to achieve it are well-known, the advantages are
widespread and the disadvantages are minimal. Just do good current
best-practice CSS-based fluid design and you get mobile support for
free.
Interactive sites are hard. Limited UIs need careful design if they're
to work well on phone screens. Static pages though, it's really no big
deal.
OTOH, if you're having to work with nightmares like WML or PartnerML,
then &deity; help you.
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|