Sites and iPad

[rcjordan]

I'm reading around a few Mac forums re setting up the iPad. It's worth noting for the developers here at th3core that a fairly common rant among users is that they are being shown mobile page versions rather than 'real' web pages.   If you're sniffing the user agent I suggest throwing iPad users in with desktop. I knew enough in advance of setting up my own browser that it'd have to be able to fake the user agent.  Unless you have tech traffic, you had better figure that the bulk of your viewers are running whatever safari does as default. 

[GerBot]

i second that, ipad screen = full version unless you use flash

[rcjordan]

>flash

There are enough iPhones and iPads out there now that a site owner must **seriously** consider reliance on flash to be a detriment to overall traffic.  I have also seen several study headlines that seem to confirm that iPhone and iPad user demographics are higher income AND tend to buy more online per capita.  I tend to agree with that supposition.

Case in point:  Try shopping for high-end home decor items online on an iPad, say, Hunter Douglas metallic vertical blinds.  These types of sites tend to be almost exclusively flash driven and, by doing so, they are killing off some of their best prospects.  I can tell you for sure that one site lost a 4 digit vertical blind sale because I got pissed off over flash.

[Brad]

I think if you can get by without Flash then it is a good idea.  Some designers use Flash when it is not at all needed.  Sometimes it is needed and in those cases I would still use it - depending on how high-ticket the item is.  I was researching cars - some companies had sites totally dependent on Flash - others had a iPad browser sniffer and switched me over to a non-flash version of the website, something I really appreciated.

[grnidone]

My mantra regarding Flash:

"Put Your Fluff in Flash"

Seriously, if you're working with someone who insists they have their marketing babble on the site, put it in a small flash image that won't detract from everything else.

I am convinced it's the only thing flash is good for.

*hand up* No no.  I won't change my mind on this.

[4Eyes]

Re:Flash
IMO, you build sites for conversion rate first, SEO second (an essential second, but still second).

There are audiences and markets where 'flash' or similar 'bells and whistles' will improve conversion rate.

'Opinions' whilst fun to discuss in the pub, will always need to be sacrificed to actual test results - those that insist on sticking to hard and fast 'opinions' are playing golf with less clubs than their competition, so whilst I don't use flash much, I would never rule it out either.

iPhone and iPad user demographics are higher income AND tend to buy more online per capita

That is not the same as saying that they choose to order using their jesus phones or pads. It is not a 'normal' demographic, as they do not use these devices exclusively and many fall into other demographics that are far more useful as indicators of intent (media professionals, female, pink dollar/pound, 'the higher income' already mentioned, Mac FanBois etc).

I am not as interested in what iPunters say as in what they do  -  If I ever product a site targeting them, I would love to compare conversion rates between a well set up 'mobile only' site and the well set up 'normal' site. I have a feeling that even in this fashion conscious market, the simplicity of a mobile specific site might pay better.  

[nicebloke]

>> a site owner must **seriously** consider reliance on flash to be a detriment to overall traffic

I completely agree.

>> Creating a site for IPad consumption as the primary driver

I don't think that's exactly what's being suggested is it?

[4Eyes]

>> a site owner must **seriously** consider reliance on flash to be a detriment to overall traffic

I totally disagree  - but maybe my issue is with the precise words used.

It is absolutely NOT to the detriment of overall traffic (assuming we are talking about flash being part of the page, rather than the whole site). The traffic still arrives, right?  so .. I assume that what was really meant was that is could be to the detriment of conversions. Or am I missing something here? I assume that iStuff still shows the non-flash bits Ok, right?.. in which case they see the same as I do with my 'flash block' activated - doesn't stop me ordering stuff. I don't think anyone on this forum has EVER advocated 'reliance on flash' for the key functioning parts of the site, surely?  For conversion improvement elements maybe - but surely no more than that.

It 'MAY' be to the detriment of conversions - or it 'MAY' contribute to conversions - depending on the demographic you are targeting and the products you are selling etc.

There is always a danger that 'us web designers and SEO types' make the mistake of assuming that we are representative of the 'whole world' - we are, of course, not even close to that. Most people do not use these platforms, and at least in the UK segments that I have client sites in, users of these devices are less likely to place orders online than users of 'real' computers (YMMV). Does that prove I should ignore them ? .. does it prove that the 'whingers' who complain about seeing a mobile site instead of a 'real' site will order less?

No, of course not - we should continue to 'test' and react to what we discover.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

[rcjordan]

>I don't think that's exactly what's being suggested is it?

No. I'm suggesting that sites should give me static pix or a slideshow with flash as an option if they've sniffed the ua and see that I'm flash-capable.  Frankly, with a few rare exceptions, I think flash is only for the designers who want that tv commercial look.