THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2010 — Page 8
How Has The Internet Changed The Way You Think?
How Has The Internet Changed The Way You Think?
Nicole proposes an interesting way of clearing floats with a combination of display:table-cell and generated content.
I was in Dublin recently to give a little talk at the 24 Hour Universal Design Challenge 2010. It was an interesting opportunity to present my own perspective on web design to an audience that consisted not just of web designers, but designers from many different fields.
I gave an overview of the past, present and future of web design as seen from where I’m standing. You can take a look at the slides but my usual caveat applies: they won’t make much sense out of context. There is, however, a transcript of the talk on the way (the whole thing was being captioned live on the day).
Towards the end of my spiel, I pointed to Tim Berners-Lee’s recent excellent article in Scientific American, Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality:
The primary design principle underlying the Web’s usefulness and growth is universality. When you make a link, you can link to anything. That means people must be able to put anything on the Web, no matter what computer they have, software they use or human language they speak and regardless of whether they have a wired or wireless Internet connection. The Web should be usable by people with disabilities. It must work with any form of information, be it a document or a point of data, and information of any quality—from a silly tweet to a scholarly paper. And it should be accessible from any kind of hardware that can connect to the Internet: stationary or mobile, small screen or large.
We’re at an interesting crossroads right now. Recent developments in areas like performance and responsive design means that we can realistically pursue that vision of serving up content at a URL to everyone to the best ability of their device. At the same time, the opposite approach—creating multiple, tailored URLs—is currently a popular technique.
At the most egregious and nefarious end of the spectrum, there’s Google’s disgusting backtracking on net neutrality which hinges on a central conceit that spits in the face of universality:
…we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless…
That’s the fat end of the wedge: literally having a different set of rules for one group of users based on something as arbitrary as how they are connecting to the network.
Meanwhile, over on the thin end of the wedge, there’s the fashion for serving up the same content at different URLs to different devices (often segregated within a subdomain like
mobile.—still better than the crack-smoking-inspired
It’s not a bad technique at all, and it has served the web reasonably well as we collectively try to get our heads around the expanded browser and device landscape of recent years …although some of us cringe at the inherent reliance on browser-sniffing. At least the best practice in this area is to always offer a link back to the “regular” site.
Still, although the practice of splintering up the same content to separate URLs and devices has been a useful interim step, it just doesn’t scale. It’s also unnecessary.
Most of the time, creating a separate mobile website is simply a cop-out.
Hear me out.
First of all, I said “most of the time.” Maybe Garrett is onto something when he says:
It seems responsive pages are best for content while dedicated mobile pages are best for interactive applications. Discuss.
Although, as I pointed out in my brief list of false dichotomies, there’s no clear delineation between documents and applications (just as there’s no longer any clear delineation between desktop and mobile).
Still, let’s assume we’re talking about content-based sites. Segregating the same content into different URLs seems like a lot of work (quite apart from violating the principle of universality) if all you’re going to do is remove some crud that isn’t necessary in the first place.
As an example, here’s an article from The Guardian’s mobile site and here’s the same article as served up on the
Leaving aside the way that the width is inexplicably set to a fixed number of pixels, it’s a really well-executed mobile site. The core content is presented very nicely. The cruft is gone.
But then, if that cruft is unnecessary, why serve it up on the “desktop” version? I can see how it might seem like a waste not to use extra screen space and bandwidth if it’s available, but I’d love see an approach that’s truly based on progressive enhancement. Begin with the basic content; structure it to best fit the screen using media queries or some other form of feature detection (not browser detection); pull in extra content for large-screen user-agents, perhaps using some form of lazy loading. To put it in semantic terms, if the content could be marked up as an
aside, it may be a prime candidate for lazy loading based on device capability:
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside element, and which could be considered separate from that content.
I’m being unfair on The Guardian site …and most content-based sites with a similar strategy. Almost every site that has an accompanying mobile version—Twitter, Flickr, Wikipedia, BBC—began life when the desktop was very much in the ascendency. If those sites were being built today, they might well choose a more responsive, scalable solution.
It’s very, very hard to change an entire existing site. There’s a lot of inertia to battle against. Also, let’s face it: most design processes are not suited to solving problems in a device-independent, content-out way. It’s going to be challenging for large organisations to adjust to this way of thinking. It’s going to be equally challenging for agencies to sell this approach to clients—although I feel Clearleft may have a bit of an advantage in having designers like Paul who really get it. I think a lot of the innovation in this area will come from more nimble quarters: personal projects and small startups, most likely.
37 Signals recently documented some of their experiments with responsive design. As it turned out, they had a relatively easy time of it because they were already using a flexible approach to layout:
The key to making it easy was that the layout was already liquid, so optimizing it for small screens meant collapsing a few margins to maximize space and tweaking the sidebar layout in the cases where the screen is too narrow to show two columns.
In the comments, James Pearce, who is not a fan of responsiveness, was quick to cry foul:
I think you should stress that building a good mobile site or app probably takes more effort than flowing a desktop page onto a narrower piece of glass. The mobile user on the other side will quite possibly want to do different things to their desktop brethren, and deserves more than some pixel shuffling.
But the very next comment gets to the heart of why this well-intentioned approach can be so destructive:
A lot of mobile sites I’ve seen are dumbed down versions of the full thing, which is really annoying when you find that the feature you want isn’t there. The design here is the same site adapted to different screens, meaning the end product doesn’t lose any functionality. I think this is much better than making decisions for your users as to what they will and won’t want to see on their mobile phone.
I concur. I think there’s a real danger in attempting to do the right thing by denying users access to content and functionality “for their own good.” It’s patronising and condescending to assume you know the wants and needs of a visitor to your site based purely on their device.
The most commonly-heard criticism of serving up the same website to everyone is that the existing pages are too large, either in size or content. I agree. Far too many URLs resolve to bloated pages locked to a single-width layout. But the solution is not to make leaner, faster pages just for mobile users; the answer is to make leaner, faster pages for everybody.
Even the brilliant Bryan Rieger, who is doing some of the best responsive web design work on the planet with the Yiibu site, still talks about optimising only for certain users in his otherwise-excellent presentation, The End of Unlimited Bandwidth.
When I was reading the W3C’s Mobile Web Best Practices, I was struck by how much of it is sensible advice for web development in general, rather than web development specifically for mobile.
This is why I’m saying that most of the time, creating a separate mobile website is simply a cop-out. It’s a tacit acknowledgement that the regular “desktop” site is beyond help. The cop-out is creating an optimised experience for one subset of users while abandoning others to their bloated fate.
A few years back, there was a trend to provide separate text-only “accessible” websites, effectively ghettoising some users. Nowadays, it’s clear that universal design is a more inclusive, more maintainable approach. I hope that the current ghettoisation of mobile users will also end.
I’m with Team Timbo. One web.
Send a tweet and get it knitted into a scarf that will then be given to someone who really needs it this Christmas.