Discussion on:

Re-think everything for mobile or you're toast

of Web on mobile devices simply to get rid of this madness:

I went to a local, rural, pub (I'm in the UK) for a decent steak and a pint of ale and was greeted by an enormous sign outside telling me to download their iPhone App.

A PUB? It needs a simple web page to impart information like prices, upcoming events (Ooo, a jumble sale...) and simple advertisement. It happened to be Apple that time, but I've seen it elsewhere for inappropriate things like shops and even on the back of cereal packets, where a billboard advertising the app takes the place of the advert, which is now embedded into a simple web-app for the phone. Contrast this with a regular advert with the now ubiquitious www.gohereformore.info on the bottom, which worked fine for everyone with a decent sized screen.

That is not only exclusive (no Symbian apps, which is a common smartphone OS for example) but a waste of resources that could be better spent targeting web browsers instead, that ALL internet capable devices have. Its only a matter of smart content that reconfigures according to screen size, and it has been done successfully already, if not entirely seamlessly.

I'm with you on this. Everyone and his brother with a iPhone wants an app so they can be seen to have jumped onto the latest technology band waggon. Problem is they've gotten onto the wrong bus and are charging off in completely the wrong direction. The way forward is not flippin' apps, it's competently designed Web pages and promotion of the fact that they are ios and Android friendly. BB & WP7 too I suppose, for now

Is because people will use them to communicate, using the web on the phone is a pain, its slow and its small. I started a new job at an IT outsourcer two weeks ago and still haven't had anyone phone me requesting help with a mobile yet. Surfing the web on a mobile is not fun

Part of the reason more phones will be sold than computers is that new phone models with new features are being introduced all the time. Many people feel they MUST have the new model or they'll DIE, often discarding functional devices as 'obsolete'. In the US, two years is the max life of most phones regardless, because that's when the phone service contract runs out and the user gets a 'free' new one with the new contract. Tablets may well see the same sales turnover for the similar reasons - new features and service contract expiration.

Computers are pretty much a mature product. There's no need or desire to buy a new one every 18-24 months.

I also question using phrases like "...or you're toast" in a blog titled "Sanity Check".

There is no support for older phones like there is for computers which makes it hard to keep a phone longer than two years. Every computer OS vendor will support their OS for a minimum of 5 years, but a phone is lucky to get updates a year after it is released.

Bill

Apple has been excellent at updating phones for 2+ years, although certainly not 5. I doubt the accuracy of 5 years for computers too, however. The exception was Windows, when they botched Vista so bad that they had to continue to support the older OS.

what kind of support does it need? It worked before the two-year mark; it didn't suddenly stop working because the support ended.

While most OS support doesn't end quickly, hardware warranties usually runs out after one year.

an excellent article which succinctly points out the ludicrously show behemoth-like attitude to evolving Web design and mobile Web views which frustrates me at least hundreds of times daily. It's usually the big players who are the most resistant to getting up to speed with what is happening in the real world IMO. a couple of personal pet hate sites of mine just now for being terrible to view via mobile devices are google+ and HSBC, oh yeah and Ebay

The real question for me is whether it is even possible to have a single design that will work with mobile (3.5-5") and tablet (7-11").

The general history of physical product design says it's unlikely (there are few cases where we simply use a larger version of a smaller design) as does thinking about some of the specifics of mobile design i.e. often used one-handed, most targets should be accesible within the sweep of the users thumb - in fact one of the big advantages of apps is often that once you've entered your credentials once, you can typically avoid keyboard input, which pretty much instantly forces you to use two hands.

(This is also presumably one of the drivers behind Paypal's PIN design - data entry on small screens will always be a pain in the neck, even with a physical keyboard like a Blackberry).

Tablets, on the other hand, pretty much force the user to use two hands to interact - and you can already see some of the weaknesses of simply scaling up whe mobile approach with the iPad - it's definitely better than re-using a system designed for WIMP usage, but it feels like it makes poor use of what a tablet could be.

Widgets, for starters - I really like the way Android tablets & Windows 8 from what we have seen have an 'active' home screen.

So if anything, I expect tablet and mobile phone design to increasingly diverge.

Of course, that's not going to stop the snake-oil salesmen from flogging technical solutions (the write-once fantasy, that presumes that users want the same thing).

Mobile web advocates also have to seriously look at why users prefer apps, rather than trying to argue what developers should do.

I used to design Web pages donkeys years ago whilst flash was still a relatively unpopular Macromedia product. I've never felt that a properly designed Web page should be constrained or crippled because of the resolution at which it was viewed.
I feel that the biggest problem currently are the assumptions that we are all using a mouse, that we are all perfectly happy to have crap like flash littering our Web pages and that we are all happy to have endless adverts and/or pop-up adverts/forms.

and so your argument is what then? the opposite? we all have touch screens and can do finger gestures other than the middle one?

Both sides of this are EQUALLY at fault for the speed of stupid.

I don't have any touch capable computers, my laptop, my three desktops, etc.. the ONLY touch device I have is my palm based phone ... and the same goes for my house mates ... except they have iphones.

What developers *NEED* to do, is design the content with the user agent string in mind, first and foremost giving the user an option to *REVERT* to the standard web browser view if they want to, and then within the designed for Iphone, or Other smart phone screen .. needs to create dynamic buttons that can resize based on orientation, and standardize on the access method.

10 inch ipad might have the buttons dynamically larger, or shown the full time, where a 3 inch display will have finger tall buttons, that stay hidden with the exception of a pulsing corner graphic to indicate "HEY HERE IS WHERE YOU FIND THE BUTTONS YOU NEED" alertness to the visitor.

never underestimate the power of stupid. and the web is full of it.

When the Spectrum becomes saturated and the Browsing Experience slows down so much that what you where originally complaining about on that BlackBerry is considered as Fast.

No matter what anyone says there is only so much Radio Spectrum available and that limited amount is rapidly approaching the point where we are going to see diminishing returns and slower Browsing Speeds. Now who wants to Break the Laws of Physics and come up with a solution to the Available Bandwidth that isn't available?

Col

no flash, less adverts.

There will be plenty of wired bandwidth available for us dinosaurs and our desktops, and our large screens that all the sites are already formatted for.

my previous reply was a tad simplistic.... for me, the fact that the mobile network operators need to invest in updated equipment is taken as read, is something the network operators are already painfully aware of and something which is already a matter in hand by those network operators who plan to survive. Currently a throttle technique of needing to advance buy mobile data by the chunk, as pioneered by Vodafone but with most other UK operators following suit is being used, but this is only going to buy time. The requirement is for exponentially increasing bandwidth, and like websites bogged down by outdated design principles, those mobile networks which do not invest HEAVILY, now, will not be around much longer methinks.

Ads won't go away because people will not pay for something they can get free (I have an office full of people that will not pay $0.99 for a game). You can upgrade network equipment all you want, but bandwidth takes up frequency spectrum and that is limited (which is why the FCC can auction off blocks of spectrum for BILLIONS of dollars). Investing heavily in equipment drives up the cost of the service and most people are unwilling to pay more than they already are.

Bill

It isn't that I am unwilling to pay 99 cents for a game, the issue for me is I am reluctant to create yet another account on yet another service to pay the 99 cents, and have my CC info out there even more than it already is.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but to prove I spent the 99 cents on that particular twiddle game, the maker of the game is going to get my info as well. I just don't want to go there. If I could hand a guy a buck and walk away with my app, I would have bought several already.

Also, if the networks build more towers, doesn't that free up more bandwidth as the radio traffic doesn't have to broadcast as far? Now, two guys sitting next to each other are going to compete for bandwidth, but if they are a mile apart and connecting to different towers, they can use the exact same frequency. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

You are absolutely correct about the cell tower part. But it is costly to have more towers, ie smaller cells. Simple arithmetic of more subscribers sharing per cell means lower cost.

The Complaints that arise every time that a Telco wants to put in a new tower.

Currently as things stand they get a lot of complaints about possible harm and Visual Pollution for what is already there. Do you honestly believe that they could put more in the same area?

Col

Which is what is currently being rolled out and ignoring the older Cell Networks that are being shut down so everyone eventually is moved to either Satellite or 4G just how many New Cell Towers do you think will get approval.

Wireless Broadband, Smart Phones, Slates and the like are all competing for this spectrum and there are currently individual Towers that are exceeding capacity in Major City Areas. That is not the capacity of the individual tower but of the Available Spectrum that that tower uses.

You'll hear numerous complaints that Data Transfer in a particular area is slow at certain times of the day and that can not be cured by upgrading the equipment as currently if it's 4G there is nothing currently available to Upgrade to.

When Individual Towers reach their limits like that it pushes more load onto adjoining towers which start to suffer similar fates and affecting more and more people adversely. As we are currently already experiencing this in some places how long to you honestly believe that it's possible to continue growing at the current rate and that is without taking into account that the current growth is not going to continue but to Exponentially Expand?

That is what is being addressed in this article the Exponential Growth of this Sector and no thought has been taken to even consider looking at it's Limitations. You can not continue to grow and offer the same service to all of the customers who use the service as the demand exceeds the available Data Transfer Rates right now in some places. It's not going to get better only worse.

Col

You sound like all the "Sky is Falling" people who were complaining that that we were approaching the physical limit on clock speeds. Spectrum has physical limitations, but bandwidth isn't necessarily as constrained. Simple fact of the matter is that 4G's ratio of bandwidth to spectrum simply isn't in line with your thesis.

Have you noticed any 10 or 15 Ghz CPUs? Most manufacturers have redesigned their chips to do more per clock cycle because it is expensive and complicated to make them run at higher clock speeds. This is also why multi-core CPU's are the rage. They can boast about higher preformance without having to break the laws of physics.

Just as a note, bandwidth = spectrum. I spent 10 years working in the radio/communications arena and there really isn't any way to get around the more data you send across the wire the more spectrum is used.

Bill

Sites should drop the mobile version of their apps or at least, give the option of going to the full site. Some do this already, and I applaud those sites. Get rid of Flash and use HTML 5, don't do any mouse overs or anything other than clicks so you don't need a mouse. Get rid of the Javascript as well. Then your site will work on most devices.

I have an iPhone 4S, an iPad 2, a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, and I Nook Tablet with the new N2A 32Gb card. So I have two iOS devices and two Android devices. The iPad 2, Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Nook Tablet have no problems dealing with the full Web site, so don't push me over to the mobile side, and actually I don't like it when I get shoved to the mobile site when I'm on my iPhone 4S. I can't think of any reason to want the mobile site anymore. Yes, at one time when the devices were too slow, but not anymore. Each of my devices is dual core, and depending upon what comes out next, quad core will be "normal". In fact some of the quad core devices are out already. The only real big hinderance is the mouse over (this "feature" I really hate on the laptop/desktop, it's so annoying). just stop doing it.

I have a mobile, a tablet, and a PC. The mobile and tablet are stopgap measures, allowing me access to the Web when I'm not at my PC, very useful but less than ideal. But would I ever get up from my PC and grab a mobile because it gives me a better experience? Never. No one would. The big screen, the full-size keyboard and mouse can't be beat. The day may come when a new technology causes me to give up my PC, but I certainly haven't seen it yet.

it's not because mobile and handheld devices are insufficient to the function of most of what we want to do www-wise, it's because sites are currently designed with an overwhelmingly heavy desktop device bias.... but the way we, the people, want to view the Web has ALREADY changed. The sites haven't evolved at the same speed.... that's what Jason is saying.... adapt or die, swim or sink.

What you mean is, People that are doing serious creative work don't like be handicapped with an under-powered device with slow access and small display. I'd hate having to work with handcuffs on too, especially when I up against a deadline. Mobile devices will most likely continue to be a "companion" to desktops for "serious work". Not a replacement. Find me a developer of content who would give up their mult-display,quad core, 64bit machine for an iPhone/iPad/Android to write apps, webpages or presentations, and I'll concede.

My touchscreen devices are great for kicking back and laying on the bed with the dog curled up beside me and browsing the Web, or when I'm an enforced sofa companion to some soppy film, travelling on a train or waiting for an appointment. I'll be jiggered if I would want to do any serious work on them though. Thing is, so many people have already switched with queues behind them of people who are giving this convenience serious thought. The take-up of the touchscreen as a convenient, instant ready Web access device isn't going to decrease any time soon.

I don't think the mobile will usurp PCs.
TV and Tablets might.
I think Mobiles might go the other way and once again be First a phone then have addons like MP3/4 Radio and camera.
People will have tablets that link to their mobile on the move or use wireless hotspots. (Might even replace the function of the mobile with skype).
When people get home they can use the CPU power of the tablet as main unit together with TV.
Tablet might even have pico projector that creates a keyboard/mouse on any surface.

The Raspberry Pi is possibly a non runner or forever delayed project but it's a prototype of the future.
Tablets are more likely to increase than hi tech mobiles.
Kids and youths might have mobiles high on their lists but as soon as they start to work, practicality starts to kick in.

Things are bound to change, and the move to mobile devices will only accelerate.

As a motorist, however, I am somewhat dismayed. There are enough distracted drivers operating dangerous machinery while their eyes are glued to a cell phone interface or key pad instead of the road. I think that mobile devices are great, but they should be used at appropriate times. My state has been wary about making the use of hand-held devices illegal while driving, but, to me, this is a no-brainer. I would rather share the road with an impaired driver who has his eyes on the road than with a sober driver who's more interested in reading his text messages.

As has been said, and in response to what eitherkeiffer mentioned, the 'best' way isn't necessarily the 'popular' way. People WANT Flash, it's a buzzword, and easier for them to wrap their minds around than 'HTML 2.0' or whatever. People want Apps for the same reason. Heck, I went looking for a print driver from a company and found they no longer provided them. What they had was a Windows-based App for printing! Same with 'Cloud'... New and different terms describing a bundling of technologies we are already familiar with, but will make an impression on the masses. Because that's where the money's at!

There are also major errors and assumptions being made in articles like this. PCs sold 400 million units, vs 600 million for smartphones. This OBVIOUSLY means the PC is in decline, right? Well, wait. They may have sold 350 million last year, or even if they'd sold 600 million, they LAST longer now! People don't need to buy a new PC every year. Heck, I was using a 10 year old one until it crashed, and I replaced it with a 5 year old one! A good number of those smartphone buyers probably don't even know how to use their devices beyond being a phone, and the majority will own two or three AND a home PC!

We're surely going the way Jason says, but that won't be until we get constant and dependable bandwidth of around 4-7Mbits/sec to the device. I'm told we're supposed to get many times that, but I've yet to SEE it. I don't do any surfing away from WiFi, if I can help it.

Although my boomer generation may be approaching the time where we move off the stage, we've still got a good 25+ years left, and at least most of us early boomers will not give up our notebooks and move to tablets/smartphones exclusively for several good reasons:

1. Intelligence- the tablet & smartphone crowd seem to want a device that they can work without thinking anything through, for the simple purposes of web access and social networking, primarily. I want a device that actually allows me to do some work, not just be entertained!

2. Privacy- I keep financial records, budet and estimated tax spreadsheets, encrypted copies of tax returns, etc., on my laptop. I want these stored on my hard drive, and backed up to onsite and offsite storage media, NOT stored in the cloud, where they might be hacked.

3. Reliability- including accesibility (what if you don't have a good 3/4G or Wi-fi connection, the cloud server goes down, the cloud company goes out of business, etc.)

4. Privacy Part 2- I, and I believe many like me, don't WANT to be accessible 24/7. When I'm with family and friends, or jhust by myself doing some fun activity or having quiet time, I don't WANT people not physically present horning in on me, and have "virtual people" diverting my attention from people who are actually physically present. If it's not urgent, leave an e-mail. If it is urgent, give me an old-fashioned phone call on my "dumb phone"! If YOU think it's urgent, and I haven't given you my cell number, chances are that I don't think it'd be urgent.

5. Size matters- but in this case, small is better, especially being male & straight. Until manpurses become accepted wear for hetero males, I appreciate a small phone I can put in a pants pocket without making a huge bulge, and not having to wear a belt holster for my device.

6. A caveat- were I to become involved in an activity- day trading, for an example- where I needed ready access to the Internet, I would, indeed, appreciate having a smartphone that allowed me to contiunue my ongoing online activity without being tethered to my office, or having to carry around something as bulky as even a MacBook Air or a Windows ultrabook. In this case, I would go to a smartphone, and appreciate it. But until I get involved in something that involves the need for ready web access anywhere, I'll stick with a thin laptop and a dumb phone.

You must live in a 4G area. What percentage of people actually have 4G? For those who have 4G, be grateful, I pay for 4G but don't live in a region that has 4G service.

In my 3G world, even the Websites written for mobile devices are way too slow.

Tablets have a large enough display for viewing, but phones? I must be getting old!

For me, I use a phone browser to kill time or for trivia look ups.

In countries like Honduras for example. The phone Internet is really slow. So for the moment the phone apps won??t be replaced yet. Though pages tailored for mobile are needed. That means you have to rethink the whole the design once more to have low kb pictures since MB is out of the question. And big javascript files might just slower the pages more. For that reason I don??t see the mobile apps dying. However, in a couple of years we may be more mobile than we think or estimate.

... they'll want what the adverts and peer pressure tell them to want. Flash is on the way out IMO. I give it five years. However much people want what looks cool, they don't want to be kept waiting forever for advert/flash heavy sites to, your disinclination (and mine) to browse other than by wifi is a case in point. At the moment flash isn't seen to be the guilty party, an in a sense it isn't, it's the misuse or more specifically OVERuse of flash content (as in by the megabyte) that makes it increasingly unpopular. Overly frequent, overly large and often buggy flash updates aren't winning them any brownie points either.
Nevertheless, handheld devices, whether communicating via wifi or 3G / 4G are definitely becoming a much more common method of browsing the www and sites do, IMO, definitely need to adapt.... including this one TechRepublic. I had to give up text entry using the appropriate field, use a notepad app and copy and paste this text, because otherwise trying to enter this on my nook color into the Web page was gonna do my head in

I'm not buying into this. This shift to mobile has the smell of a bubble. This major redesign of the web is going to cost money, and lots of it. Where is it coming from? Where is the ROI for these companies? Take SiO2's pub example. I seriously doubt that business will ever make a dime off their app. It was wasted money at a time when money is short for pretty much everyone. When companies realize they're not making money off mobile, they'll quit putting money into it.
Then there is the bandwidth issue several others have mentioned. Let's face it. Bandwidth in the U.S. is pitiful. We all know it. It's even worse for mobile. This translates into a frustratingly slow user experience. Their mobile devices are just going to be stopgap measures until they can get to a "real" connection, which means a PC/laptop.
Another issue is the fact that mobile devices are currently operating on what amounts to a cell phone hardware cycle. A new device is replaced before the user gets the plastic off the box. The average person isn't going to put up with that. They can't afford it. It's just more frustration.
Another thing that I think is being ignored is the amount of repeat buyers. You know, the folks that have to have the latest gadget. They bought the original iPad and then bought an iPad2 and will buy iPadn. That isn't two users, it's one. I've seen too many "user" projections based on sales, which is not even close to a 1-to-1 comparison. Think about PC sales. How many of those are "new" purchases vs. replacements? It's near zero these days. When you factor the repeat buyer into the equation, the mobile explosion is more like a bang than a boom.
Ultimately reality will set in and mobile will settle in to its niche. The hype will die down as people really learn what mobile is good for and more importantly, what it is not.

It would help if there was more of a standard among devices on how they interpret style sheets. Trying to adapt an existing site is not easy when mobile devices require different CSS links and styles.

there is a danger that this discussion is going to enter the smart phone vs tablet vs lap/desk-top war.
Jason's original suggestion, which I (obviously) agree with was that for Web browsing, site designers need to start re-thinking based on the types of devices people are choosing to use to access the www. I doubt that many doctorate theses will be produced on smart phones. I believe that 'real' computers are going to be needed for a long time to come.
Notwithstanding, with so much Web browsing (not doctorate writing) being done on smart phones and tablets (via wifi, mainly, sure), and with it being obvious that the internet is being increasingly accessed by devices with touchscreens rather than mice/touchpads/ipoints, the Web site designer with his ear to the ground and his eye on the future will write sites that will last longer and be more popular.
(copied and pasted on my Nook Color from Memo Pad (Android) into the text field at TechRepublic, because TechRepublic needs better adaption to touchscreen using Web browsers )

The observation SiO2 made was so sad. Is no location free from this plague of connectivity?
Here is a market niche for you . . .
How about a pub or "watering-hole" that is a Faraday Cage. Absolutely free from RF. Just imagine - an ambience free from cell-phone sound, people yakking on cell-phones, no texting, no watching sports scores. Just real time human interaction with your pint and fellow carbon-based life forms.
I'd call it "Faraday's".