Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [wmlprogramming] Interesting article

Expand Messages
  • Luca Passani
    ... I ll get the ball rolling by pointing out what appears to meas fallacies in the article: - I am not familiar with Orkut, let alone with their mobile web
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dejan Kozina wrote:
      > Just found this one, written by an Opera developer:
      > http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2009/mobile-web-development-compatible-with-the-one-web/
      > Seems better than average to me.

      I'll get the ball rolling by pointing out what appears to meas fallacies
      in the article:

      - I am not familiar with Orkut, let alone with their mobile web version.
      I have no doubt believing that it was so bad that users actually
      preferred a transcoded version. But come on, that's just one
      application. Everybody here knows that a typical mobile application
      (even when relatively poorly coded) will always win hands-down when
      compared to any transcoded web version in terms of usability. There is
      no discussing it. You may come up with a scenario where the web site has
      a function which has been left out in mobile, but trying to demonstrate
      anything else is like trying to demonstrate that a SUV is preferable
      when looking for a parking spot in the center of Rome.

      - "77% of the traffic is reformatted full-web": this only proves that
      users know that full-web is better when reformatted through OperaMini.
      Users are using their regular browsers for sites which they know to work
      OK on mobile. Also, a full-web page is a lot of reformatting (i.e.
      higher number of reformatted pages per site) because of people clicking
      around to find what they need. Mobile-optimised sites will typically
      make people find what they are looking for when they are mobile sooner
      (i.e. less clicks,i.e. less transcoding). In short, taking this 77% as
      an indication that mobile surfing is less popular is wrong.

      - It does not mention WURFL: I think this is a deadly sin for someone
      who writes about the different ways to serve mobile content in 2009.
      This is particularly true if you consider that Opera uses WURFL to
      decide which versions of OperaMini to provide to downloaders. This
      ommission seems intentional to me, particularly if you consider the
      other non-omitted obsions in the list:

      - "Mobile Device Detection and Style Sheets without User Agent Detection
      or Server-Side Scripting
      This is taken by the author for granted. Unfortunately for him, he
      refers to a poorly-informed blog by someone who has not understood the
      AdMob Metrics report (or, more simply, was desperately looking for stats
      to bend evidence to his point in the face of reality).


      To make a long story short, it is not true that 50% of deices around can
      use CSS without UA detection/Server Side scripting. The AdMob metrics
      has a graph about device OSes where a deviceOS is a development platform
      for developers (i.e. new apps can be installed on the device). This
      means that most feature phones (with simple, non-accessible, proprietary
      OSes) are not accounted for. Yet, those devices are 85%+ of the whole
      market! Someone hasn't done his homework here.

      Of course, let's not forget that Opera is the producer of OperaMini,
      i.e. a transcoding proxy. It is only obvious that their message is
      "people want the full web", because they are making money on transcoding
      as much as they can (they partnered with ByteMobile last year). By now,
      we are not so easily fooled by transcoders, are we?

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.