Also, we're drifting away from list appropriate topics... Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Chris Williams <ch...@clwill.com> wrote: > > Philip, as I described in the message I just sent, I too am developing a > very complex and detailed application where I was convinced that one > needed a huge screen to appreciate it. After many discussions with my > contract designer she was able to convince me that the mobile user was > worth pursuing. > > I wasn't initially convinced, so I approached several users and discussed > the idea of using a phone or a tablet. They hadn't even imagined such a > use case. With one, I started brainstorming and we realized that being > able to walk around with the application, on a phone or tablet, was in > fact a game-changer for the industry (I'll leave the specific industry out > of it). After discussing it with other users, they (to my surprise) > started to become huge advocates for it. > > Now, the mobile use case has become a cornerstone of the new product, a > true differentiator from the competition. And not only has thinking about > mobile changed our market strategy, it has, I believe, made a better > product for the full screen user (see my other message). > > In short, I think people who ignore mobile do so at their own peril, or at > least to their own market detriment. > > Chris > >> On 4/10/14 9:18 AM, "Philip Taylor" <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> >> I develop two sorts of site -- those that convey information, >> and those that set out to exploit web functionality to the full >> in order to achieve on-screen something that might otherwise >> require using a full GUI toolkit in order to accomplish. >> >> The first are pure text. They say what needs to be said >> and no more. I imagine that they will render satisfactorily >> on any tablet or mobile device, but lacking both I have >> never tested them against such a benchmark. >> >> The second (of which an example can be seen at the link below) >> typically require a screen resolution of at least 1152 x 864 >> in order to display satisfactorily (unless the visitor has good >> eyesight and can use negative page zoom in order to see more). >> They are not intended to be usable on tablets or similar, neither >> can I envisage any satisfactory way of making them render satisfactorily >> on such devices (nor can I envisage how to make the manuscript content >> accessible to blind and partially sighted users, which I regard as >> a far more important issue, and one that I would dearly love to be >> able to address). >> >> Since I don't create sites that seek to merge these two (in other >> words, my sites are quite unlike the vast majority of sites that >> one experiences today), I am not convinced that the first need >> to be made more mobile-friendly or that it would be possible >> to make the second more mobile-friendly. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
