programming and human factors
by Jeff Atwood
From the "why I don't read Robert Scoble any more" department:
One thing I wish is that Web site developers/designers would look at their site on a small screen with limited bandwidth. So many sites suck really bad. I'm going to call these sites out with increasing frequency in 2006.If your site makes you scroll for 20 minutes just to see your content, it sucks. It'll get called out.
If your site squeezes a column so that it's only one word wide, it sucks. It'll get called out.
My wish? Please try your site on a cell phone (tonight I was comparing sites on a Treo, on a Blackbery, and on my phone. My phone was best, but there were lots of sites that sucked on all three).
Millions of Web users are out there with cell phones. If you don't get your site to work properly with a cell phone, you're turning away customers and that sucks. It'll get called out.
You know, it would be nice if every single website was designed to scale perfectly across all resolutions from 176x220 to 1920x1440.
It'd also be nice if trees were made of cotton candy, and rain was delicious lemonade.
This is what I refer to as ".. and a Pony!" thinking: the person asking the question doesn't know that what they're asking for is essentially impossible. So you might as well throw a Pony in there while you're at it. Everyone loves Ponies.
I don't mean to single Robert out here. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he's the absolute poster child for this phenomenon; it comes up over and over again in his blog.
It'd be helpful if he actually offered any thoughts on exactly how one would go about implementing a web site that scales up seamlessly seventy times in resolution. But why explain yourself when you can just use magic?
Of *course* you can't expect a single design to cover everything from cellphones to hi-res monitors. Instead you have to pay a bit more attention to what the user agents are asking for. If they prefer WML to HTML, then redirect them to your WAP content. I-mode UAs prefer cHTML, so you need to identify those too.
But that's exactly it: Scoble is asking the wrong question. What he should be asking is, "Why don't all sites have special content for mobile devices?"
I think there are perfectly rational reasons NOT to have mobile content, as many posters have cited above.
Stating "everything I browse should just work on a 176x220 screen" isn't helpful. It's not a meaningful discussion of the actual problem, even.
Jeff Atwood on January 24, 2006 1:43 AMAlso, a bit of attribution.. the phrase "and a Pony" *seems* to come from Calvin and Hobbes:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes
--
Susie may have originated the "and a pony" meme, in a strip collected in Something Under the Bed Is Drooling (1988-04). Wondering why Calvin calls her "names for no reason? It's just mean," Susie wishes she had a hundred friends. "Then my hundred friends and I would go do something fun, and leave Calvin all alone! Ha! …and as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony."
--
I've used it for a couple years without being able to define where I heard it first.
Jeff Atwood on January 24, 2006 2:07 AMScoble shouldn't be asking "Why don't all sites have special content for mobile devices?" because that kind of content defeats everything what the web SHOULD be. And it should be accessible to everyone, everywhere; that's what "web development with standards in mind" means.
More and more people are browsing the web using their mobile phones; losing them because you've failed to understand that it's 2006 is nothing short of stupid. Designing alternative content and employing UA sniffing is a workaround against a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place. You might argue that not every mobile browser is standards-compliant enough, but things ARE improving - as a matter of fact, I now know 17 people who have started using Opera Mini in the last week. Other browsers will follow Opera's lead some day in the not-so-distant future.
AJAX and Flash are nice for some things. But go ask my blind cousin (yes, I do have a blind cousin) what he thinks about sites which use them for something that's not meaningless (like ads or luckily-blockable shoutboxes), but the site's main functionality.
Jeff's post above mentions frameworkitis; this blog entry is, unfortunately, about desktopitis.
The web is not the desktop, people, and will be even LESS connected to the desktop as time goes by. Think mobile.
P.S. Jeff's blog is, of course, perfectly viewable on any mobile device, in any browser.
Blah on January 24, 2006 6:24 AMJeff, with all due respect, it *is* perfectly possible to design perfectly nice websites that would be perfectly usable on mobile phones.
That's called "web development with standards in mind". It includes handheld media CSS, non-table-based layouts, structured and semantic markup, etc.
Anonymous on January 24, 2006 6:47 AMYou, sir, are a genius. I died laughing when I read this, and the link to my favorite web comic was just too much. Right on.
Brent O. on January 24, 2006 6:49 AMDoes anyone indeed require "seamless" scaling?
I'd guess site being usable/readable is enough. And that is not impossible.
I'm currently working on getting my site to where it doesn't require a flash plugin or javascript to be turned on. After I've completed that so it's viewable on any browser including those that run in a high-security mode, then maybe I'll work on making it look good on a phone.
Chris Wallace on January 24, 2006 7:13 AMRound our way we call that asking for the moon on a stick.
Darren on January 24, 2006 7:15 AMYou seem to be confusing compatibility with scalability. Of *course* you can't expect a single design to cover everything from cellphones to hi-res monitors. Instead you have to pay a bit more attention to what the user agents are asking for. If they prefer WML to HTML, then redirect them to your WAP content. I-mode UAs prefer cHTML, so you need to identify those too.
If your business website doesn't support handheld devices, then you're losing trade. It's as simple as that.
Phil on January 24, 2006 8:01 AMHey Scoble, maybe if IE supported CSS a little better (like max-width and true font resizability) we wouldn't have these problems.
Oh, and IE for mobile devices doesn't support the "handheld" CSS mediatype correctly.
NathanB on January 24, 2006 8:16 AMI can somewhat agree what business sites should cater to as many devices as possible (especially tech companies) but what about personal sites? Scoble spends a lot of time reading blogs and I don't think bloggers want to spend all their time catering to the small number of users that view their blogs on mobile devices (i say small number in comparison to those viewing on a pc).
Chris Wallace on January 24, 2006 8:38 AMI am sure you can create a great page by doing "web development with standards in mind". But sometimes you require functionality that are not "standard" and more often the client browsers does not support the standards.
It is my experience that there are no 100% web standards, and because of that you have to look into what is most often used and somehow scale down to your own common standard. If you do that, you can create a perfectly functional site that can work on 99% browser clients, whenever it is browser on mobile phone, pda or pc.
But when you have functionality like Ajax and Flash that can (WHEN used correct and ON the right client software) provide the user with a better experience I would not skip that just support ALL costumers. I would much rather have that in mind when I develop my web application and have that application handle each client differently.
As with Netscape users suffered due to Microsoft's IE takeover, so will the mobile users for some time suffer from being on a platform that are lesser used.
But yes I agree that we need to take mobile users more into accounts since they are becoming better and better as browser clients. But I cant see myself read long posts and texts like many Blog’s or read code examples that often are several characters wide on a phone.
Me personally I have pc’s almost everywhere I go, and I cant surf while driving from/to work, and if I on some rare occasion should be without brows able hardware, I would much better read a book, listen to some music or tickle some women.
Anyway, isn’t the mobile browser market even more chaotic then the pc browser market where we only have FF, IE, Safari, Opera, etc.? Maybe I am too old fashioned when it comes to mobile phones, but it seems like a new model pops up every week, tons of different screen resolutions, different amount of memory, colour support and manufacture. Seems like a impossible task to implement a site without doing the most basic layout and navigation.
Who Really Browses on their Cell Phones Anyway?
a href="http://www.damnralph.com/2006/01/02/WhoReallyBrowsesOnTheirCellPhoneAnyways.aspx"http://www.damnralph.com/2006/01/02/WhoReallyBrowsesOnTheirCellPhoneAnyways.aspx/a
Our website (http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk) was designed with multiple resolutions in mind, so everything stretches. But it's still far from perfect.
For mobile users, that's why we designed our WAP site (wap.avonandsomerset.police.uk) as there is just too much content on our primary site.
Just sit closer to the monitor. Check out that scaling!
Haacked on January 24, 2006 12:30 PMWWJND?
(What Would Jakob Nielsen Do?)
mike on January 24, 2006 12:38 PMDesigning a great and easy to use webpage is more than just coding to web standards. It's also a form of art. Developers who cannot excel at both do not deserve the title.
That being said, it is ridiculous to argue that every webpage on the internet should be choked of creativity simply so it will look "okay" on a 176x220 screen. Why should I give up what would otherwise be a great usability aspect in my design, simply so the 0.1% of my audience that are on handhelds, don't have to use the vertical scroll bar?
I say, anyone perfectly willing to give up that much creativity, probably doesn't have any to begin with. If you are really concerned about how your webpage looks on a handheld, then skin it, and make a PDA version so the users can choose. Don't argue to take away my freedom to make a beautiful artistic design simply because you don't know or care how.
Space Goat on January 25, 2006 5:47 AMI want a Pony. I want a flesheating, dorkstomping pony. I want it to trample the Scobelizer and subsequently eat him.
Seriously, if you ever refer to yourself as the Anything-izer, you've gone from garden-variety douchebag (i.e., he who references himself in the third-person) to a whole new order of asshat that I can't even begin to discuss without it making me throw up in my mouth.
I want a jetpack, I want a hot dog, I want a puppy dog...
Anti on January 25, 2006 8:10 AMAnytime someone talks about the "mobile web" or browsing a web site on their cell phone I think of that Dilbert cartoon where he embeds a small computer into his ring. It only displays one character at a time. "Quiet, I'm browser the internet" , he says as he holds the ring up to his finger.
If I ever designed an alternate version of my website for WAP, I'd make sure that the font scaled up to one character per page. Just because of that cartoon.
Scott on January 27, 2006 1:48 AMDesigning a great and easy to use webpage is more than just coding to web standards. It's also a form of art. Developers who cannot excel at both do not deserve the title.
LOL...so there are, like, what, 500 developers in the world? At least there's no shortage of chopped liver.
David on January 28, 2006 3:52 AMJeff I totally agree - I tried to make the same argument in my blog:
a href="http://spaces.msn.com/smuga/blog/cns!F45992FB42C35BE4!518.entry"http://spaces.msn.com/smuga/blog/cns!F45992FB42C35BE4!518.entry/a
Even if a site can be implemented in such a way that it renders both on the PC and on mobile, it just means that it'll be viewable on the two platforms, not necessarily usable (designing a usable mobile site takes some thought)
Michael Smuga on January 29, 2006 7:14 AM110% agree with this. Over here in my team we get lots of Pony thinking/wishes that you woudl'nt even believe. Your post reminded me that Pony thinking transcends all different types of scenarios, ranging from platform to something simple as webpage design.
Trevin on January 31, 2006 1:19 AM110% agree with this. Over here on my team we get lots of Pony thinking/wishes that you wouldn't even believe. Your post reminded me that Pony thinking strikes terror in everyone, ranging from platforms to webpage design/layout.
Trevin on January 31, 2006 1:20 AMI must grant Scoble one thing: his aim (ever since the days of VBPJ CompuServe) was to become an apologist - sorry, evangelist - for Microsoft, preferably without knowing a thing about computers.
In that it appears he has succeeded.
Anonymous on February 15, 2006 8:25 AMOMG THAT PONY IS SO SO CUTE WAT IS ITS NAME??
sydney on November 11, 2007 5:51 AMi love oer hores
emily on February 17, 2008 3:47 AMthis is the most hilarious piece of writing i have ever read in my life! Gosh where do you get this stuff?
Lina on February 23, 2008 1:27 AMOh my gosh. do you want to go out with me? I'm free every other week. bye, handsome.
sexy on February 23, 2008 1:29 AMhi nice pony
oo.',l, on February 23, 2008 12:48 PMi love the pic
sophie Grace on April 27, 2008 6:27 AMSome of this will come with time as the toolkits start to magically take care of this - ASP.NET controls which render minimally on mobile devices, etc. For the most part, though, it comes down to cost. Web development is expensive, and I don't think the cost of supporting mobile devices is justified for most sites at this point. Mail sites, eBay, and a few other major services with high traffic and a compelling mobile use case can justify the cost, but for most sites it would be a poor allocation of resources compared to adding features for the huge majority of their audience.
I'd be happy if sites worked well from 800x600 to 1920x1200. That's not nearly as hard - heck, they could at least center a fixed width div if they can't handle the horizontal scaling.
Jon Galloway on February 6, 2010 9:46 PMHmmm, lets fit every website on my phone. Its ridiculous.
I agree, that most website are poorly designed and use tons a features that probably are not supported by the phones "browser".
But if your use just HTML, you should be able to stream text to any device, including a phone. But people like to include client script, ajax, flash, etc. to make a "better browsing experience" and that stuff is probably not supported.
So, give users links to text only pages and they should be able to get the information they need. I would never view this site through my phone. However, I might want the latest NFL scores through my phone, give me a link to the HTML page/feed and that will work.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe via email
|
|
Traffic Stats |