11 Different versions of your site

Your comments say you are not telling people to create different versions of their site specifically for one device, yet in your article you say

“Finally, you may wish to make a version of your site that is targeted directly at the iPhone: a site fully optimized for the device.”

“Going deeper: designing for the iPhone”

“Finally, remember the width of the iPhone screen: 320 pixels (for portrait) and 480 pixels (for landscape). Content that fits naturally within these sizes works best and will require less scrolling by the user. Likewise, content that does not span across multiple columns will be easier for the iPhone user to access.”

“Now let’s talk about taking the big plunge: creating a separate part of your website that is dedicated to iPhone users.”

To me, this sounds a lot like you are saying we should all develop sites specifically for the iPhone to make yours and the millions of other iPhone users happy.

posted at 06:36 pm on August 28, 2007 by Richard Samela

14 Multiple versions

The comments people have made about making multiple versions of a site are quite valid. This article suggest, even advocates, the sort of forking we have been trying to avoid for years. It is for this same reason that I did not approve of the .mobi top-level domain.

I’m sorry, but although this is a well-written and interesting article, I think this sort of encouragement is a backward step for A List Apart.

posted at 07:24 pm on August 28, 2007 by Simon Jessey

15 Demographics

I gotta back Craig up on this one. Phones are stealth thin clients, and while mobile web is not new, it just got a huge boost in momentum from Apple. If you want to look at the numbers, don’t look at PC users vs. smart phone users. Look at the total number of mobile phone users, and think about how it is more than likely that more and more of these users will be accessing the mobile web as phone manufacturers feel the need to compete with Apple.

Also, just going by iPhone users, keep in mind that these are people that are willing to drop $500 – $600 on an unsubsidized phone. iPhone users are people with money to spend, a very desirable group from an advertising and marketing POV.

Rather than complain, you should be thanking Craig for giving you the heads up so you can stay ahead of the curve in implementing these changes. From a purist standpoint, mobile web might be a step backwards, but real artists embrace challenges and limitations.

posted at 10:05 pm on August 28, 2007 by Mark Mayer

16 We are not just artists.

I believe that given enough time, most people who design for the web realize they are information architects at the core. We become devoted to standards, not the client apparatuses no matter how glorious they may be.

posted at 10:17 pm on August 28, 2007 by Mike Sabatino

18 Untitled

You state: “Rely on web standards. If actions speak louder than words, note that Apple has replaced Flash with web standards on its own corporate website.”

Very good article but what’s the web standard Apple is using? If you’re saying Quicktime, then I would argue the statement. How can Flash not be considered one if the penetration of the player is even higher than QT. I rarely design Flash content but in the end, both technologies are not necessarily “standards” but different means to an end.

posted at 01:47 am on August 29, 2007 by hcabbos hcabbos

19 iPhone not a "Blackberry Killer"

Very few companies will be issuing iPhones to employees, like Blackberry hand-helds. But still, the iPhone and everything to come from Apple sure may tackle the younger, non-executive market. Yep, I have one— and I’m not executive. I have it because it’s VERY cool, and has everything I want in a mobile device. Unfortunately, the service isn’t that great as a phone. How many dropped calls did I have yesterday….

I’m also a Web Producer, and am excited about making some content that works really well on an iPhone. I’m impressed with the Web applications available already, as well as the tools (iUI).

I let out a sigh when I used the iPhone Safari browser to view my Web sites… and they looked just fine, apart from missing Flash. Thanks, Apple. Nice article too!

posted at 04:41 am on August 29, 2007 by Kevin Davison

20 Handheld Soapbox

I was surprised that Apple chose not to support the handheld CSS media type – not even a preference or an option. This is a handheld device is it not? I get that Apple wants to provide the whole web and all, and Safari does handle big and wide sites quite elegantly. But at the same time, we have a handheld device here and a whole entire site at Apple dedicated to optimizing for the small screen, complete with a whole set of iPhone-only markup and CSS techniques to facilitate this optimization. And there is clearly a large and growing movement to build sites and applications specifically for the iPhone.

Why not just support the handheld media type and be done with it? I’ve already optimized several sites for handheld media – they are now like the tiny little towns on Route 66 that got bypassed by the interstate. Apple could own this space in no-time with all the rush to build iPhone-compatible layouts. With Apple’s current guidelines, I feel like I’m having to fork my code unnecessarily.

The iPhone should support the handheld media type, at least as a preference or an option. And all that font sizing and viewport setting should in my opinion be set in the styesheet and not in the markup. I love my iPhone, but this is the only area where I take issue.

posted at 08:56 am on August 29, 2007 by Joe Lewis