macblogz.com— Many websites automatically redirect iPhones to mobile versions of their sites. These mobile sites often deliver limited content, wasted space, and eliminate zooming.
Dec 5, 2008View in Crawl 4
It's not that hard to check the user agent for an instance of "iPhone" or "iPod" and give us the full site. They have to do a check anyways, so why not switch us to the other side?
i think we should have an option in the system settings of the iphone to be able to have the mobile site or automatically give us the normal site. I prefer the normal site because it is full content where as the mobile site is always extremely truncated and minimalistic with little information.
Google Reader is great on the iphone, love the way the stories pop open within the scrolling list view, without taking you to another screen. Some iPhone Apps have really good mobile browsing ui's that I don't think are matched by any webapps, e.g. "Now Playing" (movie listings) and Yelp.
Flickr and Facebook seam to have figured out how to do mobile web design. Maybe they should start an mobile web design business to give other websites and their users the benefit of having a clue.
All the above. IMO a site needs a mobile version (on by default) for better usability, one designed for the small screen and thumbs, not mice. But there are always reasons a user might want to access the regular site view.I prefer url's to stay the same, no "/iphone", "m." or ".mobi". The url to a news article should be the same and unique no matter what device is displaying it.There's nothing wrong with sniffing User-agent when you need to, it's gotten a bad rap <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent#User_agent_sniffing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent#User_agent ...</a> Overrides can be done via cookies or query string parameters, though ideally browsers would let users control User-Agent easily.I know sites are not offering all their features in the mobile view now, but that needs to change. Just about everything I want to do on digg I'd want to do from a mobile browser (eg, submit articles while browsing, digg comments).
I hate visiting a link where the website detects I'm on an iPhone and thus presents an "iPhone" or "mobile" version of their site, I like what I see so I Email the link to myself (or friends/family) for reading later only to find out that the "mobile" version craps out when loading from a Desktop.What these sites need is transparency between mobile and desktop. It is fine to tailor a site toward mobile users but links to pages on such a site should get redirected appropriately when the browser is on a Desktop.Is that so hard?If they can detect I'm mobile and handle redirecting to the "mobile version" why not the other way around?I don't think I'm asking too much.Plus, the inability to pinch and stretch images and pages on a "mobile" site through iPhone bites the big one!
yodaofdarknessDec 6, 2008
It's not that hard to check the user agent for an instance of "iPhone" or "iPod" and give us the full site. They have to do a check anyways, so why not switch us to the other side?
christinmeDec 6, 2008
i think we should have an option in the system settings of the iphone to be able to have the mobile site or automatically give us the normal site. I prefer the normal site because it is full content where as the mobile site is always extremely truncated and minimalistic with little information.
jamshidDec 6, 2008
Google Reader is great on the iphone, love the way the stories pop open within the scrolling list view, without taking you to another screen. Some iPhone Apps have really good mobile browsing ui's that I don't think are matched by any webapps, e.g. "Now Playing" (movie listings) and Yelp.
Closed AccountDec 6, 2008
Flickr and Facebook seam to have figured out how to do mobile web design. Maybe they should start an mobile web design business to give other websites and their users the benefit of having a clue.
snakedal337Dec 6, 2008
Opera Mini?? But..but that's not in the app store.. did you jailbreak??;-)
jamshidDec 6, 2008
All the above. IMO a site needs a mobile version (on by default) for better usability, one designed for the small screen and thumbs, not mice. But there are always reasons a user might want to access the regular site view.I prefer url's to stay the same, no "/iphone", "m." or ".mobi". The url to a news article should be the same and unique no matter what device is displaying it.There's nothing wrong with sniffing User-agent when you need to, it's gotten a bad rap <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent#User_agent_sniffing">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent#User_agent ...</a> Overrides can be done via cookies or query string parameters, though ideally browsers would let users control User-Agent easily.I know sites are not offering all their features in the mobile view now, but that needs to change. Just about everything I want to do on digg I'd want to do from a mobile browser (eg, submit articles while browsing, digg comments).
pilotkidDec 8, 2008
This account has been closed by the user
badash71Dec 11, 2008
I hate visiting a link where the website detects I'm on an iPhone and thus presents an "iPhone" or "mobile" version of their site, I like what I see so I Email the link to myself (or friends/family) for reading later only to find out that the "mobile" version craps out when loading from a Desktop.What these sites need is transparency between mobile and desktop. It is fine to tailor a site toward mobile users but links to pages on such a site should get redirected appropriately when the browser is on a Desktop.Is that so hard?If they can detect I'm mobile and handle redirecting to the "mobile version" why not the other way around?I don't think I'm asking too much.Plus, the inability to pinch and stretch images and pages on a "mobile" site through iPhone bites the big one!
sonuparasharMar 27, 2012
We can also Visit http://mofuse.com for mobile version website.