If I can be delicate, I would say that thinking has moved on from these sorts of arguments in the last year or so.
What the iPhone showed was that actually people *didn't* want to visit the traditional sites designed for sedentary humans, even when the browser could take it. Witness the boom in iPhone specific sites that followed its launch: sites that capitalised on the mobileness of the user. And increasingly these capitalise on the devices' unique features (click-to-call, location information, different UI paradigm etc etc)
The word "mobile" in "Mobile Web" is an adjective, not a noun. It's a medium designed for mobile *people*, not particularly mobile *devices*.
(Incidentally, this is entirely consistent with the idea of "One Web". There is one web, but some parts of it are better suited for mobile users than for desktop users. Just as some parts are better suited for German users than American. It's not about the syntax or presentation of the markup, but about giving people what they want in their particular context.)
Erik M Jacobs
· 1 year ago
James, Excellent comments - thank you!
I guess I was hung up in how "different" the Japanese i-Mode "web" was, and not sure if it still is. I think you make an excellent point about how sites are capitalizing on the features of the iPhone and the other devices that visit them. This is part of the reason why services like WURFL, a device description repository, are popular. They let the site maintainer know the makeup of the device visiting and can allow customization of the features and layout to suit.
You are definitely true, the "reality" of the web is that there really only is one web. I guess the point that I was trying to bring out is that as the devices continue to evolve and become more PC-like in their power and functions that we may see less difference between what suits a normal desktop user and what suits a mobile user.
All Comments
What the iPhone showed was that actually people *didn't* want to visit the traditional sites designed for sedentary humans, even when the browser could take it. Witness the boom in iPhone specific sites that followed its launch: sites that capitalised on the mobileness of the user. And increasingly these capitalise on the devices' unique features (click-to-call, location information, different UI paradigm etc etc)
The word "mobile" in "Mobile Web" is an adjective, not a noun. It's a medium designed for mobile *people*, not particularly mobile *devices*.
(Incidentally, this is entirely consistent with the idea of "One Web". There is one web, but some parts of it are better suited for mobile users than for desktop users. Just as some parts are better suited for German users than American. It's not about the syntax or presentation of the markup, but about giving people what they want in their particular context.)
Excellent comments - thank you!
I guess I was hung up in how "different" the Japanese i-Mode "web" was, and not sure if it still is. I think you make an excellent point about how sites are capitalizing on the features of the iPhone and the other devices that visit them. This is part of the reason why services like WURFL, a device description repository, are popular. They let the site maintainer know the makeup of the device visiting and can allow customization of the features and layout to suit.
You are definitely true, the "reality" of the web is that there really only is one web. I guess the point that I was trying to bring out is that as the devices continue to evolve and become more PC-like in their power and functions that we may see less difference between what suits a normal desktop user and what suits a mobile user.