At 08:33 AM 8/5/2011, Richard Wiggins wrote:
>I understand your point, but from experience I tell you, the content
>provider often offers a very different view, and often a wrong one
>-- and often different content, though Dave assures that won't
>happen -- when they detect you are "mobile".
Dave says the default will not be the mobile version, and that we'll
get to choose. I like that. I don't like not being able to
choose, but I sometimes like the mobile versions, where they
exist. If nothing else, they sometimes load faster. Sounds to me
like the web team is going about this in exactly the right way.
>Tell me why the content provider gets to decide how content is
>delivered. Just have the server deliver valid HTML. Current,
>standards compliant HTML. HTML 5. Don't decide what to deliver to
>me. Give me the content and follow the standards.
>On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Alexander Hawley
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > device's characteristics based on what the server sees as the
> mode of connection ... tethered devices ... mobile phone's local
> Wi-Fi access point
>It doesn't work like that.
> > mobile support ... separate
>Of course. It's not that the browser or screen requires separate
>needs. It's that a user on a mobile actually has different uses for
>information. It's most apparent with extreme cases.
>For example, the IRS income tax website. On your mobile, you're not
>likely to step through your entire income tax preparation. You very
>much more inclined to be looking for calendars, deadlines, and contacts.
>Another example. For a mobile user, a restaurant needs to highlight
>contact, map, menu, reviews. That is, not the family history of the
>owner, from where they get their produce, or what they put in the
>It is entirely unreasonable to assume all users may be accommodated
>by simple changes in style and complexity but given the same content