Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Web Design Hampers Mobile Internet?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the yin-and-yang-of-the-net dept.

aws910 writes "Reuters is running an article on how flashy web design is impacting the usability of internet-enabled mobile devices, with quotes from Tim Berners-Lee. Although the article is sparse on details, it is an interesting topic for discussion. Having recently bought an internet-enabled cellphone, I can honestly say that most websites are painful to view on a 240x320 screen over a GPRS connection(EVDO is expensive/US-only). Have we moved away from 56K-modem-oriented design, only to be pulled back in that direction?"

39 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. Useless... by donnyspi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    IMO, broswing website using some silly little contraption is silly. Just view the sites on a regualr computer when it's more convenient. Or, every web designer should use CSS and have a handheld-friendly CSS option.

    1. Re:Useless... by MoonFog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about when you don't have one available? Waiting for a flight, sitting on the subway or whatever?

    2. Re:Useless... by slashdevnull · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The do what the cavemen did while they were waiting for their flights - sit down and shut up.

      Contrary to popular belief, you don't need to have a cellphone shoved into your ear, or a web browser in your face 24/7.

    3. Re:Useless... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Of course, the opposite might just be true ... if you want more people to view your site, you might want to consider those who do not have ADSL, or are mobile, or live in a country where 800x600 is still considered hi-res.

      Either way, you might want to consider that a good portion of potential viewers will go somewhere else if the word "Flash" appears in the first 30 seconds, or nothing at all appears in the first minute.(You can always have a link to the "Alternative, pointless, bandwidth intensive and painfully slow graphics version").

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:Useless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with alternate versions is cost. You're required to maintain a separate codebase for your slimmed down version, and you need to have enough potential earnings for that codebase for it to become feasible. Unless a considerable chunk of your clients for the regular version demand a trimmed down version or they will move to a competitor, there is no business case for supporting alternate platforms right now, due to low usage numbers.

      Ofcourse, over time the use of the web on handheld platforms will become widespread enough for there to be a business case for supporting them, but as always, there is a case of chicken and egg.

      Look at the history of CSS on the web. Tons of benefits, but as long as the vast majority wasn't using a CSS-supporting browser, there were few CSS-based sites, and most browser makers dragged their feet to implement a sprawling standard nobody used.

      Also, I understand that there are a lot of slashdot users here who dismiss "flashy" websites, but make no mistake, flashiness is a feature that sells. Ofcourse, all flash and no function leaves you biting the dust. But if you have feature parity with your competitors and your competitors have a more attractive product, you will lose marketshare.

    5. Re:Useless... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, good idea, because as everyone knows, web designers have all the time in the world to design a bunch of different versions of a single site, and of course, their employers & clients are always willing to pay to develop all that for a ridiculously small percentage of people hitting the site with a cellphone.

      It'll be nice if, one day, people realize the vast majority of professional website designers have very little say-so in what goes online. "Design it this way."

      Gah.

    6. Re:Useless... by bonch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if your site clearly seperates its data from its presentation (come on, CSS isn't a new technology now), it would be incredibly easy to just fashion up a new barebones stylesheet. If it's difficult, then your design is broken and you should have written it correctly from the beginning.

      Sorry to be harsh, but it's 2005 now. These concepts aren't new, and it shouldn't be difficult to make a bare-bones view of the same site after you've designed for that all-important client.

      I run the website for a local company, and creating a plain-text stylesheet with basic colors and lines would take me all of 15 minutes.

    7. Re:Useless... by RapmasterT · · Score: 5, Insightful
      My front page is 83k of HTML, 10k of CSS, 20-50k of images, and, in one part, 140k of javascript.

      Frankly speaking dude, a person who calls themselves a "web developer" and is making 283K homepages is part of the problem. That's bigger than CNN's.

      Badmouthing people for your inability to control your page bloat, just shows that your maturity as a developer is lacking in more areas than just efficiency.

    8. Re:Useless... by Valar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And contrary to popular belief, there is nothing wrong with having 24/7 access to tremendous volumes of information. You can do research on just about any subject from just about anywhere. That is an amazing gift that technology has given us. Just because it is different than the way it used to be done, doesn't make it bad.

      --

      ====
      Crudely Drawn Games
    9. Re:Useless... by kryonD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " The problem with alternate versions is cost."

      Cost is a double edged sword when you are looking at future business models. In the past 6 months, my company has been visited by big-wigs from every major wireless provider in the US desperatly seeking the killer app that will increase wireless airtime usage.

      Yet, even today, I still can't whip out my mobile and easily check weather, news, or plan a trip (to include reserving tickets). All of things could be done 3 years ago in Japan. And this time it wasn't due to any magical Japanese techno glory. It was simply just that the mobile providers partnered with content providers to make the phones tools that could be used for every aspect of life.

      As long as we are stuck with this crappy SMS messaging (seriously, how hard is it to have full email to a phone...it's just data), and no content to make the web browser in my phone anything more than an amusement that get's old in 5 minutes, product cycles are going to stay rediculously slow and we will remain two to three years behind Japan and Europe.

      Simply put, for the younger crowd, the cell phone has got to become a status symbol due to cool features (we're starting to get there), and for the older crowd, it has got to be a tool that goes beyond just being able to make a phone call away from home. Once the carriers satisfy both of these markets, we will start to see a consumer drive to have the latest features which will in turn push competition in handset design.

      The phone providers don't need a new killer app, they just need some basic organized content worth looking at.

      --
      I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
    10. Re:Useless... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Print is dead" - Egon

      It's not the medium, it's the content.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Useless... by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how do you find out how to get home when you're flight's been over booked and you're landing in a different airport 200 miles from where you started?

      I don't just browse the web for fun. I use it as my main reference library.

    12. Re:Useless... by Arker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with alternate versions is cost. You're required to maintain a separate codebase for your slimmed down version, and you need to have enough potential earnings for that codebase for it to become feasible. Unless a considerable chunk of your clients for the regular version demand a trimmed down version or they will move to a competitor, there is no business case for supporting alternate platforms right now, due to low usage numbers.

      First, if you actually wrote a proper website in the first place, you do NOT need to create or maintain two versions. This is a myth perpetrated by incompetent self-styled "designers" that never bothered to learn to understand the media they're working in.

      If you made a godawful pile of crud instead of a webpage, then you shouldn't make a new, good version and maintain them both, you should make a new, good version and delete the crud.

      So for people that have proper websites, the costs involved are very close to nonexistent. And those that don't, should really get one anyway, mobile phones or no mobile phones. So this is all a red herring.

      There is definately a business case for making your site as accessible and useful as possible for as many of your customers as possible. There's also a great business case for supporting early adopters. If you're the first, it's a great strategic move. If you're not the first, you'll wind up following a little later, and not having as good a position. The business case is there. The fact that it involves old fashioned capitalist principle of offering value to the consumer instead of conforming to the Enron philosophy of grab the money and run prevelant with management folks in the US these days doesn't mean it doesn't make business sense - just that the US corporate management culture isn't particularly agile or smart.

      You're quite correct that, all other things being equal, it's an advantage to have shiny-pretty. But the notion that you have to choose between pretty on the one hand and correct and accessible on the other. That's simply not true. And a website that has functionality problems, that relies on things like flash (you CAN use flash without relying on it, it's not very difficult, but using it improperly without providing for graceful degredation is what I'm talking about here) or is simply very poorly written, no matter how pretty it may appear when first loaded up in the most popular browser, isn't going to do the company behind it any favours in the long run.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    13. Re:Useless... by Arker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Client.: ...and I want this neato [flash thing].
      You: But that would lock out your mobile customers!
      Client: How many people would that be?
      You: Well, less than 1%, but...
      Client: Uh huh, anyway, I want this neato [flash thing].

      Sounds like "you" did a bad job of informing the client, and are letting him make a bad decision because he's not informed.

      Now the customer has the right to make bad decisions. And if you need the money (and who doesn't) then I can certainly understand implementing what they want, even when it is stupid. But I think you have a responsibility, as a professional, to inform the client so he can make an informed decision, which is what was not done.

      In this case, I'd point out that WAP users are a fast growing market, that they are likely to be better than average in terms of buying power, yes, but also that relying entirely on this flash gizmo for whatever it's doing is slamming the virtual door to your internet presence right in the face of many customers or potential customers, not just the WAP users but also the blind, those who for whatever reason still use an older browser, as well as the many who simply refuse to install or enable a flash plugin because we don't want that crap . All those groups together are probably going to be a minority of users, but it's not an insignificant one, and it really seems like bad business to me to deliberately and needlessly slam your door in their face, particularly when it's unecessary.

      Then I would simply point out that I can use the flash and get what the customer wants, but still have a site that is accessible and functional to everyone.

      That's assuming the conversation ever came up in the first place. But why would it? The client wants a flash doo-hickey? Fine. Give him one. Just do it right....

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  2. What's the problem? by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have we moved away from 56K-modem-oriented design, only to be pulled back in that direction?"

    I don't see this as really being a problem. People don't really browse the internet with handheld devices (phones, PDAs, etc) actually attempting to REPLACE their computer. People only want to be able to check their stocks or recent headlines. When the content you want to look at is just a dozen lines of text, a PDA is more than adequate. If you want to browse a page that is designed for 1600x1200 resolutions, chances are that the page ISN'T something you need to check right away, and can wait until you get to your computer.

    1. Re:What's the problem? by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Insightful
      People don't really browse the internet with handheld devices (phones, PDAs, etc) actually attempting to REPLACE their computer.

      Most people don't care how it works, they just want it to work. If cell phones can get a good LCD and a halfway fast internet connection, a good percentage of the population will want it. And if people can check their email, some news websites, and play a game or two, what else do they really need their big desktop for? Chances are, if a person knows their email mailbox is empty and responded to everything there, they checked a few websites on the phone, and played a game of tetris, they might not have any motivation to turn on the pc at home.

      If you want to browse a page that is designed for 1600x1200 resolutions, chances are that the page ISN'T something you need to check right away, and can wait until you get to your computer.

      I don't know of one website that needs 1600 by 1200 to display right. Most websites are made to display fine on a 800 by 600 resolution. I think the day is comming when the lcd's will be good enough that a phone will have a 3.5" screen and be 800 by 600.

      There is too much money in telecom for the telcom companies not to respond to what the public wants. They are making money hand over fist. If telcom companies started offering an extra "broadband" service for an extra $25 a month, that would be a huge revenue stream. Add in some cable to connect a laptop to a cell phone, and you will have TONS of people paying for that service.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:What's the problem? by pgilman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      from anybrowser.org:

      "Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network."

      - Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996

      the same principle applies to "page[s] that [are] designed for 1600x1200 resolutions." the idea is to keep content separate from presentation - that's what CSS and XHTML and so on are supposed to enable - but that goal is impossible with crap like flash etc.

      as soon as anyone puts a label on a website that says, "this site is designed for _______," it means they're locking some people (blind people, users of text browsers, PDA and cel-phone users, etc.) out of your site, and that's bad business, plus it demonstrates their ignorance of web technology.

      --
      if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
  3. In all honesty... by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Web designers should have been worrying about 56k speeds all along. Not everybody happens to have broadband yet, and even if they do, why should you bleed it all away with huge flash files, etc. If you have to add splash and flash, perhaps your message isn't as good as it could be.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  4. Surprised? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Having recently bought an internet-enabled cellphone, I can honestly say that most websites are painful to view on a 240x320 screen over a GPRS connection(EVDO is expensive/US-only).

    Well, really, is anyone at all surprised that smaller screens and lower bandwidth is slower and chunkier?

    I've tried using my cell to use the internet, and it took only a few moments to decide it was for emergency use only. Both because it's almost useless and that the providers want to gouge so much for it in the first place.

    Have we moved away from 56K-modem-oriented design, only to be pulled back in that direction?

    We've been moving in that direction ever since more and more idiots have decided I can't see any of their site without flash or some equally annoying browser technology. Gearing for slower links with older technology has been on the decline since someone pointed out it should be done.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Simple solutions by ErikTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I also just bought an internet-friendly cell phone (Treo 650), and I'm figuring out which sites want me to visit them while I'm on the run (Google and Southwest airlines, to name two off the top of my head) and those that don't (weather.com).

    Either produce a mobile-friendly version of your site - which shouln't be the end of the world, considering that most major sites these days are run by content management systems, or let the viewers go to your competitors. Automatic browser detection would be nice, but I can handle typing "mobile" or whatever instead of "www".

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
  6. Tell that to the clients and PHBs by NardofDoom · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's not (primarily) the web designers' fault that they use flashy designs. The people who get design contracts aren't the ones who use well-formed, W3C compliant XHTML that is functional even in text-based browsers. The people who get the contracts are the ones who have a 500KB Flash animation on every page and poorly coded Javascript rollovers because clients and PHBs see these things and go "Ooo! Shiny!"

    So until businesses are punished for their lack of interoperability with mobile devices, this will always be the case.

    And it's unlike they'll ever be punished because device manufacturers have the onus to interoperate with bad sites, not vice versa.

    --
    You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  7. bah. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I can honestly say that most websites are painful to view on a 240x320 screen over a GPRS connection(EVDO is expensive/US-only). Have we moved away from 56K-modem-oriented design, only to be pulled back in that direction?"

    You might, but I sure won't. I don't want to try to compare various items I'm shopping for on such a tiny screen, etc. etc. I won't buy a device for browsing the web unless it can do at least VGA.

    Why demand everyone in the internet re-write the content on all their sites because you are trying to use a bad device to view it? Should boat makers make all their boats tiny because you prefer bailing water with a thimble rather than a bucket? Use the right tool for the job, or don't complain when the wrong tool doesn't work as well as the right one.

    1. Re:bah. by Sentry21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With proper semantic markup and effective use of CSS (including 'mobile' stylesheets), you can create content that renders fantastically nice on the big screen and simply and effectively on the small screen.

      Don't believe me? Load up Konqueror, Firefox, IE, or Opera, and go to http://www.csszengarden.com/. Looks nice, right? I particularly like the design called A Simple Sunrise. Pretty nice actually.

      Now grab the link for A Simple Sunrise and look at it in Lynx. More readable than most websites I go to.

      With very little work, you could accomplish a design that is similar in colours, but is geared towards mobile users, just by adding a second stylesheet to your site (or another section to the primary one).

      The problem isn't the tool that people are using to view the site, the problem is the idiots that write terrible site designs. We've had the technology to do things right for more than five years, and yet no one uses it. Why? Because IE is broken, so no one tries (even though most things can be done in IE and Firefox easily). As a result, people think CSS is useless and can't do a lot of things, and therefore don't try.

      More important than that, however, is that most 'web designers' are complete hacks. People who grab a copy of Frontpage and commit an atrocity against design, then turn around and sell it. They don't know anything about actual design, use of colour, shapes, graphic design, and so on, so they just kind of splatter text and graphics on the page and there you go. These sites then completely break in any non-IE browser, and choke any mobile device to death.

      The problem is not the device - the problem is the designers.

  8. This is why RSS is important by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pulling down all of these websites on a Palm or PocketPC is very painful - my Treo 650 would take *forever* to load image-heavy Engadget, for instance. RSS is the perfect solution for the handheld. It allows you to quickly get a list of topics (text only, which is perfect for small screens) and then only load those pieces that interest you.

    RSS is nice on the desktop. RSS is invaluable on the handheld.

    Now if only a decent method of synchronizing multiple RSS clients could be developed (Bloglines doesn't cut it).

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  9. I say good - gimme plain by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe a dozen comments have been posted all to the effect of "don't look at the net w/ handheld - flashy is good",

    Well, flashy sucks on handhelds or on a real computer. I almost feel like I'm back on a modem when I visit some sites which feel the need to pull their flashy ads of some distant server and won't display squat till that happens. Or sites that are FLASH only - sure it's neat once ... maybe ... but how about just dishing up information?

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  10. It's Expensive. by one_i_blind · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I love my mobile internet. Yes the pages are moderately small and not flashy but at 2cents per kilobyte I don't want to be loading 50K banners and messy overhead. Maybe Mobile internet would catch on more if providers priced realistically.

  11. Here we go again, trying to make a cell phone a.. by the_rajah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Swiss Army knife.. I can see specialized sites, news, weather and, I suppose, sports scores, offering separate pages optimized for phones, but it's silly, IMO, to think that the majority of sites are going to do this. I'm certainly not planning on doing that with the sites I'm responsible for.

    Once again it's the old concept that I want my cell phone to be.....(gasp) just a phone and a good one. I don't need it to be a digital camera, or a can opener.

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  12. If everyone would code to standards. by Madd0g11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you stick to the standards you can easily make good looking sites that can scale any screen and browser.

    --
    Gimme some of that sweet, sweet crack.
  13. Bad Design Nothing Too New by bmac83 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Making overly-complicated pages did not start with the popularization of broadband. Think back to when frames were popular. I can't imagine how some of the framesets I saw eight years ago would render on a cellular phone screen. Many web designers are more artists than programmers, and this means that sacrifices of code readability and simplicity will always be made for the sake of the next big thing in style. Increased bandwidth only makes this problem worse by adding embedded objects and image-heavy sites.

  14. Same problem in reverse by Jhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    <horse type="hobby">

    The WWW is also useless on a real PC if you actually try to use the resolutions the PC is capable of. For instance my current PC/monitor combination can handle 2048x1536 resolution.

    I tried that just the other day, and >90% of sites were just unusable, even if you increase the font size.

    Then again, >90% is way better than the OS (MacOSX) and my actual applications which was 100% unusable...

    Apple is just sitting on this revolutionary resolution independent windowing system, and they just won't let me use it as intended.

    For gods sake, I just want 300 dpi monitor resolution, is that too much to as for? Especially from the company that popularized WYSIWYG?

    </horse>
    --

    I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

  15. Have some cheese with that whine by marcusss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, when will people stop finding sh*t to complain about? Do you really need to view the webernet on your cellphone ? gimme a break.

  16. I never moved away from that design scheme by haplo21112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...I can't stand flashy websites that require plugins and bandwidth eating graphics to function. I have always made the effort to code only standards compliant, low bandwidth eating fast loading sites.

    The company I work for has a large field contingent with often low bandwidth connections back to corporate so such design behavior is a must. If it can't be done with XHTML1.0/1.1, CSS1/2, and a little javascript (note a LITTLE javascript) than the design needs to be rethought.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  17. Web designers hamper INTERNET by cvdwl · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The hell with the mobile internet, how about just the plain old internet? Proprietary file formats, splashy unreadable graphics, text as graphics, lousy design, etc. You know who you are!

    If the regular internet paid more attention to bandwidth and standards, the mobile web would probably work just fine.

    If a single page requires several hundred K and several plugins only available for a Commodore 64, you know who you are!

    --
    ... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
  18. Media="handheld" by geekwithsoul · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A properly formatted page allows content to be available to everyone. For example, part of the W3C specs allow you to specify a separate style sheet for use with handheld devices. I've done this myself on our website at work, reformatting content completely for handhelds. Of course, its up to the browser to recognize this, but standards compliance is a two-way street. Both websites and browsers need to recognize and be in compliance to standards to allow content accessibility in just such cases. Kind of the whole idea of a website.

    Any site that puts out content that doesn't have special formatting and alternate content for handhelds also probably doesn't have it for the sight-impaired, or others with special accessibility requirements. It's not really that hard to do and no one has an excuse to not do it.

  19. Accidental Design by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yet another example of how these page layouts aren't "Web design", but "graphic design" for the Web. Or not really for "the Web", but rather for "IE 5.0 and more or less other apps that work kinda like it". Graphic designers are just starting to hit the hard limits of their "discipline" that industrial designers hit in the early 20th Century. When "designed" objects had to "work", and work with other designed objects not desigend as one combined object. We came up with "system design", which graphic designers haven't even considered since Churches in the Renaissance. Graphic design as a subset of graphic art, rather than encompassing art and related function, is an accident waiting to happen.

    At a degree of complexity, esthetics and function part ways. When we're lucky, esthetics catches up eventually. With the Web, too much graphic design rushed ahead without regard to functional requirements. The Mobile Web is the first major change in the Web platform, and the graphic "design", or lack of it, is cracking under the strain.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  20. cutting to the chase by mblase · · Score: 2, Insightful

    RSS is nice on the desktop. RSS is invaluable on the handheld.

    Y'know, this is really what phone users AND web developers ought to be worried about in this area. Many web site front pages are not just graphics-heavy, they're text-heavy. Like a newspaper, they put a little of everything new and interesting on the front page at once, hoping at least something will catch your eye and draw you inside. No handheld or phone, no matter how elegantly designed, is going to be able to display that much text at once in a way that humans can process it. Period.

    RSS is a perfect solution. It gives you just the headlines and/or first few lines of the article, with no graphics and only the most important text. Then you can either scroll to the next one or ask for more information. There's a zillion RSS clients for desktops, but really it's the handhelds and phones that should be embracing it.

    Does every news site out there use RSS? No, but I'm willing to bet it's a much higher number than the number of sites with small-screen versions. Besides, RSS is a one-way device--if you want to search for information, you need a web form, and that's a little more work to design. But for cryin' out loud, I'd rather wait for a phone-sized version of a search engine than try to use a desktop-sized one.

  21. If you don't travel you won't understand by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just view the sites on a regualr computer when it's more convenient.

    Except that it's not. I travel a fair bit professionally, often internationally, and when I'm on the road I use my Palm Tungsten T3 to check email and check information on a few vital websites. (Weather, Airline status, maps and a few others are invaluable) It is HIGHLY inconvenient for me to use my laptop, much less my desktop, whenever I'm on the road or in meetings. If you sit at your desk all day (nothing wrong with that), then being able to use the web on your PDA/phone probably isn't useful. But for those of us who don't, being able to use the web to get driving directions when I'm in the middle of nowhere is invaluable.

    Fortunately many websites have a PDA friendly version of their site. Accuweather, Amazon, American Airlines (and several other airlines), Mapquest, eBay, Hollywood.com, UPS, FedEx, Slashdot and my broker all have Palm friendly versions which are very light and work great. I connect my T3 through a Nokia 6310i using Cingular. Has worked great in the US, Mexico and parts of Southeast Asia. (expensive overseas though...) Data packages are still overpriced but competition is bringing the cost down.

    Anyway the point is, just because it isn't useful to you personally doesn't mean it isn't useful period. For those of us who spend a lot of time on the road, the mobile internet can be a godsend.

  22. Poor CSS support on handhelds by angusmci · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would be a lot easier to bring the web to handheld devices if the makers of such devices supported standards consistently or completely. As the css-discuss page on handheld stylesheets confirms, support is often patchy or non-existent.

  23. Best example of this by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rutgers University has a somewhat nifty website called www.whereismybus.com that is supposed to display the location of Rutgers buses in semi-realtime. This is needed because the Rutgers bus system is horribly fucked up and inconsistent, and it's nice to be able to know that the bus you're waiting for won't show up for 40 minutes when your destination is only 20 minutes away on foot (admittedly though not-so-nice parts of campus...)

    Problem: The site is heavily dependent on JavaScript and ActiveX. Not only is it useless on mobile devices, it's useless on any non-Windows machine.

    The end result: The people who need the information the most (students freezing their asses off at bus stops) have no way to access the information from their phones, no matter what capabilities the phones may have.

    Typical Rutgers. Why the hell did I choose to go here for grad school?

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?