Is your site/app mobile friendly?

dogboy · March 17, 2011, 01:08:59 PM

Anyone here mobify their desktop sites?

The bad thing about this convergence is you really got to know your options and the ramifications of your actions.

It's kinda like seo when you talk to someone about their splash flash site... ("looks nice?" "yeah, great... you're screwed")

Brad · March 17, 2011, 01:15:08 PM

I do it on a couple of Word Press sites with a plugin. The problem is the plugin makes them all look the same.

I do think this is going to be more important in the very near future. Good point dogboy, I have no idea what the ramifications are for search but I more webmasters need to know.

dogboy · March 17, 2011, 02:28:53 PM

what plugin?

And by 'all the same', can you clarify? Is that a problem because all mobile sites look the same by nature.... or are they in jeopardy of being confused by spam patrol as being maybe, uh, too similar?

Brad · March 17, 2011, 02:53:32 PM

I use the WPTouch plugin for WP. The free version cause I'm cheap.

WPTouch gives every site the same mobile template, which works well, but just looks the same except for the text. The "Pro" version looks more customizable but I have not seen it in action.

littleman · March 17, 2011, 06:12:02 PM

Mobile is going to be huge and I believe you are right DB, most of us are going to be blindsided by its growth -- it may trump desktop impressions in the next 5 years. One thing to keep in mind though is that, at least for now, sales to impressions is much worse in mobile than desktop so the metrics will be different. I think we should probably build out a mobile-topic forum here eventually.

Rooftop · March 17, 2011, 06:18:43 PM

I'm split on this one. Mobile does finally seem to be happening. As littleman says, it is very browse heavy action light, but it's happening. However I'm still not sure that "mobile version of site" is going to be the right strategy long term. App neither.

I use mobile web pretty heavily. I actually get annoyed by mobile versions. I have a decent phone that can make most sites more usable than their mobile equivalents. Not all, but most.

Personally I would much rather use a fast loading site that had been developed with nod of consideration to mobile users (not too much input please, reasonable sized buttons and a bit of space around links - thank

) than a mobile site. I suspect most developers would also rather build that and most site owners rather pay for it!

As phones continue to get faster and mobile bandwidth fatter I can see that being a common approach. However the timing of that vs the growth and not missing the boat could be tricky.

dogboy · March 17, 2011, 07:09:44 PM

...lots of good points made all around.

>sales to impressions is much worse in mobile than desktop
Even though I thought it was implied, I guess I should have said I was thinking more about a 'restaurant guide' site than an 'estate planning' site...

>I would much rather use a fast loading site that had been developed with nod of consideration to mobile users
I'm glad you said that, because that has my argument lately regarding my FB app. I could have made it just mobile, but then people would not be able to use it on their desktop. And I didnt have enough to build them both out, so I just chose the 'full site' version, knowing I have a iphone that would be able to navigate it. Plus, there actually isn't any way to admin ANY app on FB, unless you use their 'full site', so that made the decision easier than coming up with some bastard hybrid from the gitgo.

>Mobile is going to be huge
We will be just moving to smartphones from now on, so the only question is do you build for generic mobile, desktops still, or native apps?

jetboy · March 17, 2011, 07:23:22 PM

Is your site mobile friendly?

No mobile stylesheets or apps yet, but the sites work OK on pads, iPhones and Android. Has some success with mobile focussed Adwords campaigns and sold a few Ks worth of holidays from mobile devices. Definitely now worth the effort after many years of promises, and definitely growing.

Leona · March 18, 2011, 05:52:47 PM

Our new site will be, however I will only be developing it to be optimised for smart phones. I will be building on wordpress as well (of course) I did find a plugin that basically just depicts that the device is a mobile and tells wp to then display a defined template rather than having a built in template. However this was a while ago so will have to re-dig it out.

Rooftop · March 18, 2011, 06:14:57 PM

We've also be vaguelly talkin about adopting a CSS framework to handle this easier. Not my dept really, but I know that cssgrid.net and lessframework.com have been looked at at possible solutions. Can't vouch for either, but might be a starting point for anyone looking.

the cssgrid site gives a pretty simply demonstration of what it's about.

Gurtie · March 18, 2011, 06:30:29 PM

Can't remember the company name now but we just got pitched to by the company that say they did mobile.m and s and they also cited debenhams, or john Lewis, and a couple of other majors.

They basically sell it into corporates on the basis that they don't touch your website, they just stick a new style on your database. And do a bloody good job of it if the M&S site is anything to go by, I've been using that as an example for months and I still think it's great.

That said, you really don't need a specialist company to do this - it's only a css. And a learning curve admittedly, but not that complex.

However - I think there's actually more of a challange in translating informational sites to work well. Product sales are basically only nav, descriptions and a buy button in a format that functions. Sites with lots of content on one page are fairly hard to make small screen friendly imho.

littleman · March 18, 2011, 06:36:38 PM

QuoteWe will be just moving to smartphones from now on, so the only question is do you build for generic mobile, desktops still, or native apps?

I think mobile apps can get overblown unless you have something where the app ads a real value verse just having a nice functional web page. People don't want 1001 apps cluttering up their phones.

Rooftop, I really like your point about having a dual purpose website that can function in both spaces. Not only is that a return to simpler web design, it also makes for a consistent presence across multiple platforms. So far I haven't seen this approach used much.

Rooftop · March 18, 2011, 06:43:56 PM

Quote from: Gurtie on March 18, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
it's only a css.

It's not though. To do it badly it's just CSS. To do it well it's a new view script minimum. The M&S page - standard version comes in at 1188KB. The mobile comes in at 32KB. Instantly that's benefit that you aren't getting through changing the CSS.

Can't say that I have spent much time on the M&S Site (posh ready-meals and big knickers - not my thing!). However many of the more successful mobile sites are totally restructuring.

We've been trying to move clients on to MVC structured platforms for a while - that then makes this sort of things pretty straight forward. For sites that were not structured well in the first place it;s a whole new site to build and maintain though.

Brad · March 18, 2011, 06:49:15 PM

>dual purpose website that can function in both spaces.

This is a good approach.

However, the mobile world has a different set of browsers than the desktop world. Opera (is actually popular), Mobile Safari has a larger matrket share plus whatever comes with Android. FF is not really a player. Dumping Flash wouldn't hurt.

dogboy · March 19, 2011, 02:31:27 PM

I think maybe if you are doing things on the cheap, WP might have some potential... so much so I was wondering if it were possible to to use the WP static pages as the pages inside a FB canvas app's iframe. If so, I think it might answer at least part of the user experience on mobile(?)