Mobile website

Hello all,

I've created a website, designed as a mobile links hub for mobile devices.
Basically, it's designed to be an easily mobile-browsable page, with the
bare minimum formatting etc used. I've gone for an extremely simplistic
design for appearance and compatibility reasons.

Could someone perhaps examine my site and let me know what they think? I'd
obviously be primarily interested in people's experience reading it from a
mobile or PDA, but any information on possible improvements or changes would
be appreciated.

The URL is http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/index.html

Thank you!

--
Adrian

"Adrian Wood" <adrian.wood300 (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote

Hello all,

I've created a website, designed as a mobile links hub for mobile devices.
Basically, it's designed to be an easily mobile-browsable page, with the
bare minimum formatting etc used. I've gone for an extremely simplistic
design for appearance and compatibility reasons.

Could someone perhaps examine my site and let me know what they think? I'd
obviously be primarily interested in people's experience reading it from a
mobile or PDA, but any information on possible improvements or changes
would
be appreciated.

The URL is http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/index.html

I think you're going to be most successful in the project if you use HTML's
elements for their intended purpose.
Use CSS for presentation, and maybe even offer an alternative stylesheet for
the media.

--

Karl Groves
http://www.karlcore.com

In article <4E52c.4423$6Z.769@newsfe1-win>, Adrian Wood says...

The URL is http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/index.html

I can read Maddox on my phone.

Technology rules.

Your site works fine on a Sagem myX-6. Should work fine on any mobile,
given the plain simple layout.

--
Daniel Ruscoe
http://www.brakedisc.net

"Karl Core" <karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote

"Adrian Wood" <adrian.wood300 (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4E52c.4423$6Z.769 (AT) newsfe1-win (DOT) ..
Hello all,

I've created a website, designed as a mobile links hub for mobile
devices.
Basically, it's designed to be an easily mobile-browsable page, with the
bare minimum formatting etc used. I've gone for an extremely simplistic
design for appearance and compatibility reasons.


The URL is http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/index.html

I think you're going to be most successful in the project if you use
HTML's
elements for their intended purpose.
Use CSS for presentation, and maybe even offer an alternative stylesheet
for
the media.

I can understand why you'd advise CSS, but I'm a little worried about
compatibility; it's pretty much a non-issue for desktop machines nowadays,
of course, but I'm a little unsure as to the state of play for mobile
browsers so far. Not to mention I'm not sure how they work yet; I don't know
if it's apparent, but I'm extremely new to webpage making!

I am thinking of moving from directly controlling the styles to using header
tags instead; I might experiment with that and see how I feel about the
results. Would you consider that a worthy compromise?

--
Adrian

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:44:46 -0000, Adrian Wood
<adrian.wood300 (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

I can understand why you'd advise CSS, but I'm a little worried about
compatibility; it's pretty much a non-issue for desktop machines
nowadays,
of course, but I'm a little unsure as to the state of play for mobile
browsers so far. Not to mention I'm not sure how they work yet; I don't
know
if it's apparent, but I'm extremely new to webpage making!

I've looked into handheld compliance, and it's pretty uneven and often
poor. I've done my site with screen and print CSS only, all other media
get the raw content to style according to their defaults. Am thinking of
adding a handheld css if only to turn off images, but not sure that's
desirable or even necessary.

I am thinking of moving from directly controlling the styles to using
header
tags instead; I might experiment with that and see how I feel about the
results. Would you consider that a worthy compromise?

If it's the main header on the page, use <h1>. If it's a secondary or
tertiary header, use <h2> or <h3>... to <h6>. If it's not a header, use
<p>. Setting fonts the way you have can wreak havoc you never intended.

"Neal" <neal413 (AT) spamrcn (DOT) com> wrote

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:44:46 -0000, Adrian Wood
adrian.wood300 (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:


I can understand why you'd advise CSS, but I'm a little worried about
compatibility; it's pretty much a non-issue for desktop machines
nowadays,
of course, but I'm a little unsure as to the state of play for mobile
browsers so far. Not to mention I'm not sure how they work yet; I don't
know
if it's apparent, but I'm extremely new to webpage making!

I've looked into handheld compliance, and it's pretty uneven and often
poor. I've done my site with screen and print CSS only, all other media
get the raw content to style according to their defaults. Am thinking of
adding a handheld css if only to turn off images, but not sure that's
desirable or even necessary.

That's what I thought. :/

I am thinking of moving from directly controlling the styles to using
header
tags instead; I might experiment with that and see how I feel about the
results. Would you consider that a worthy compromise?

If it's the main header on the page, use <h1>. If it's a secondary or
tertiary header, use <h2> or <h3>... to <h6>. If it's not a header, use
p>. Setting fonts the way you have can wreak havoc you never intended.

Urgh, after some experimentation with headers, I'm not sure if it's the
lesser of two evils; a test page with the top section set <h1> Wound up with
a 3 line space at the top and bottome of the large title... which is nothing
on a desktop, but huge on a PDA, and resulted in just the title taking up
almost an entire screen's worth! (Serves my right for having such a long
site name, I guess, but still!) It also ended up with the information being
spaced out an awful lot throughout the page, due to the gaps between each
section header.

After some experimentation, I've come up with something which looks
sorta-kinda OK using headers, although I'm aware I'm not doing it the
*right* way. Does anyone know if not using <h#> tags in the correct order
break any browsers?

With fonts, italics etc; http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/mindex.html
With 'correct' headers;
http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/badheadertest.html
With altered headers; http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/headertest.html

The first looks fine via IE6, the Treo 600 browser and, according to Mr
Ruscoe, the Sagem myX-6. The second looks slightly overloaded via IE, and
just plain silly on my Treo. The third looks fine via IE, and passable on
the Treo; something about it doesn't click, but I'm not sure what..

--
Adrian

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:13:19 -0000, Adrian Wood
<adrian.wood300 (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Urgh, after some experimentation with headers, I'm not sure if it's the
lesser of two evils; a test page with the top section set <h1> Wound up
with
a 3 line space at the top and bottome of the large title... which is
nothing
on a desktop, but huge on a PDA, and resulted in just the title taking up
almost an entire screen's worth! (Serves my right for having such a long
site name, I guess, but still!) It also ended up with the information
being
spaced out an awful lot throughout the page, due to the gaps between each
section header.

You can use the CSS to change the size, of course. You know, if the PDA
maker can't provide a standards-compliant browser, maybe we ought to
design sites that get their customers to compel them to do so > - that
way, the next generation might pay attention to CSS more closely.

At any rate, if I recall correctly most PDA browsers will onserve
font-size. The only ones which won't don't oserve a handheld style at all,
which is the browser's fault IMO.

After some experimentation, I've come up with something which looks
sorta-kinda OK using headers, although I'm aware I'm not doing it the
*right* way. Does anyone know if not using <h#> tags in the correct order
break any browsers?

Shouldn't break any. But nesting them traditionally does help the user and
Google. Be sure you do not use <h?> tags for the purpose of simply
changing fonts. That's not what they are meant for. Different browsers do
different things with them, you can't count on a uniform rendering as well
as you can with %'s of font-size.

With fonts, italics etc; http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/mindex.html

Ok.

With 'correct' headers;
http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/badheadertest.html

I like it the best.

With altered headers;
http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/headertest.html

Awful

The first looks fine via IE6, the Treo 600 browser and, according to Mr
Ruscoe, the Sagem myX-6. The second looks slightly overloaded via IE, and
just plain silly on my Treo. The third looks fine via IE, and passable on
the Treo; something about it doesn't click, but I'm not sure what..

I looked at them in the small-screen setting of Opera, as well as normally
in Opera. The second example was the clearest for me to read in both
settings.

"Neal" <neal413 (AT) spamrcn (DOT) com> wrote

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:13:19 -0000, Adrian Wood
adrian.wood300 (AT) ntlworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Urgh, after some experimentation with headers, I'm not sure if it's the
lesser of two evils; a test page with the top section set <h1> Wound up
with
a 3 line space at the top and bottome of the large title... which is
nothing
on a desktop, but huge on a PDA, and resulted in just the title taking
up
almost an entire screen's worth! (Serves my right for having such a long
site name, I guess, but still!) It also ended up with the information
being
spaced out an awful lot throughout the page, due to the gaps between
each
section header.

You can use the CSS to change the size, of course. You know, if the PDA
maker can't provide a standards-compliant browser, maybe we ought to
design sites that get their customers to compel them to do so > - that
way, the next generation might pay attention to CSS more closely.

I'll leave that kind of crusade for the bigger sites; I doubt my little
corner of the web will ever become known enough for them to pay attention
to. I'd rather have it that people can read it with what's there *now*

At any rate, if I recall correctly most PDA browsers will onserve
font-size. The only ones which won't don't oserve a handheld style at all,
which is the browser's fault IMO.

I think I'll stick with that for now then. If I ever get any "Hey, your
sites fonts are completely messed up!" Style e-mails, I might just wind up
ditching the font size stuff altogether and just sticking with occasional
use of bold and italics; it may not be proper use of them, but at least
everyone'll be able to read it!

With 'correct' headers;
http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/badheadertest.html

I like it the best.

Urgh.

With altered headers;
http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/headertest.html

Awful

The first looks fine via IE6, the Treo 600 browser and, according to Mr
Ruscoe, the Sagem myX-6. The second looks slightly overloaded via IE,
and
just plain silly on my Treo. The third looks fine via IE, and passable
on
the Treo; something about it doesn't click, but I'm not sure what..

I looked at them in the small-screen setting of Opera, as well as normally
in Opera. The second example was the clearest for me to read in both
settings.

Yes, well. *Opera*.

Trust me. It's practically unusable, on my PDA at least. You wind up with
screens full of massive oversized bold fonts, and have to hunt around for
the links hidden away in the huge spaces between them. I've said it before
and I'll say it again; urgh. *I* wouldn't use my page if it was like that,
and I made it!

Later on, I'll check them out in Konqueror and Opera on my Linux box... But
when it comes down to it, this really isn't meant for a full-size screen,
even in a small-screen mode.

Now, when my PC pages are up and running...

--
Adrian

Adrian Wood wrote:

http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/badheadertest.html

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/badheader

For what it's worth, if it weren't for that error, I prefer this one.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

"Toby A Inkster" <UseTheAddressInMySig (AT) deadspam (DOT) com> wrote

Adrian Wood wrote:

http://www.shellprompt.co.uk/~slayer/badheadertest.html

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/badheader

For what it's worth, if it weren't for that error, I prefer this one.

Oopsy! For what it's worth, I didn't forget to put it in, I just got it
wrong... why is the '2' key so close to '1' anyway? Corrected, thanks.

--
Adrian