The iPhone has proven that touch-screen with multi-touch works great on mobile. The iPhone has also proven that true One Web or “the web as-is” (i.e. without transformation) is possible — effectively showing how dotMobi could become irrelevant. Maybe.
To be successful, iPhone relies on zooming, touch-screen with multi-touch, and, fingers! Yes, fingers. (Is the iPhone giving dotMobi the finger?) Fingers/touch makes a difference. Comparing the zooming experience in Opera Mini, which shows how client-side transformation is possible and how it works well, but when compared to the iPhone with multi-touch you quickly realize how great touch-screen with “advanced finger-support” is for usability.
In any case, those requirements is also why content transformation, and dotMobi, are here to stay; while multi-touch will be something found on advanced handsets, millions of connected handsets will still be less-sophisticated, with a small screen resolution, no touch-screen, and so on, and yet those will be handsets that we need to address and deliver content to.
ceo
“The iPhone has also proven that true One Web or “the web as-is” (i.e. without transformation) is possible”
Possible? Yes, and we’ve known that’s true for quite a while.
Ideal? No. The proof? Hundreds of iPhone-formatted web sites.
Display the web content as-is, yes, we knew was possible, given the right resources on the handset. Won’t work well (not practical) on less-sophisticated handsets.
The iPhone-formated web sites are ones that want to look more like a native iPhone application; reduce or eliminate zooming, or want integrate with the mail, map or phone. But that is different from being able to render current content as-is.
And let’s not forget iPhone’s secret weapon: its advanced finger-support
ceo
And you don’t mention it (although I know you know it): the iPhone doesn’t suddenly make web sites necessarily relevant to the mobile context.
.mobi is intended to advertise that the site is mobile content for the mobile context.
One great thing about the iPhone is that it has illustrated this point better than I was ever able to
I don’t know if I agree. I think the iPhone is a good pointer for why “One Web” is NOT possible… yet (maybe in the future, but not now). With the iPhone we have a phone with the best mobile browser EVER, and yet *hundreds* of companies have gone off and created iPhone specific websites. This flies in the face of “One Web” doctrine and re-affirms the belief that small screens are different from large ones requiring different usability and design. For me it all depends of how much you value user experience. For me you can never beat a web application that has been *designed* for your screen size and device limitations/idiosyncrasies.
” … [One Web] does not mean that exactly the same information is available in exactly the same representation across all devices.”
http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#OneWeb
Re: Jo — Yes, true.
Re: Jason — The way I see it, iPhone means One Web, this is, taking the same content, per the content-author intentions, bringing it down “unmodified” to the client, then render it “as-is”, as the author intended, including ads and so on, that is One Web to me. The iPhone (and Opera) are just showing the beginnings of this vision, and what the future holds. I’ve created transformation engines in the past, I know exactly the pain of bring a consistent experience. That said, what the iPhone proves for me is that at the end, content authors are willing to (go through the expense to) create customized websites, as you said, for the purpose of better user experience. Yes,
"you can never beat a web application that has been *designed* for your screen size and device limitations/idiosyncrasies."That is not the point I was trying to make, but 1) One Web is possible sooner rather than later on advanced handsets by providing touch-screen, multi-touch and ZUIs (that is a great advancement in HCI), and 2) bacause of the requirements for #1 above, One Web is not practical on non-advanced handsets. And you now add #3, which is, even with #1, content owners will always create customized websites. I will argue the number of such customized websites will be low compared to non-customized.Re: James — Yes.
ceo
Pingback: Mobile Web and JSF (and transformation/adaptation) | …about mobility - the mobility weblog
Ah, thanks for pointer Jo. I think my understanding of the “One Web” concept my slightly off the mark. I get you now Enrique.
> “The iPhone has also proven that true One Web or
> “the web as-is” (i.e. without transformation)
> is possible”
I disagree. I own a iPhone and what it clearly shows is that, if you want to provide decent user-experience that makes content/services relevant for mobile user, you need to create mobile content from the ground up. The iPhone is the proof that one-web is a distraction for developers more than anything else.
Here is an excersize for whoever happens to own an iPhone. You can connect with EDGE or WiFi, the point will be demonstrated anyway.
Hit:
http://www.repubblica.it
(major italian newspaper) and count seconds until the page is fully loaded. You’ll stop counting anywhere between 8 and 25. Once the page is loaded, you’ll be unable to read the news. Too small. You can zoom, of course, but that will only help to a point: You’ll read one headline and about 10 words of text and then click your way to another 15 seconds wait before you can read the actual piece of news. Not very cool.
Now point your iPhone to the mobile version (nothing to do with adobe flashlite in spite of the name):
http://flash.repubblica.it
wait = 2 to 5 seconds. No need to zoom. Scrolling with the thumb is simple and fast as hell. Click on the piece of news you want to read. Another 2 seconds (pictures included). Wow! that’s mobile. That’s a service that people will use when they have 2 minutes to kill while they wait for the buss….or on the train…or wherever. Not the regular website. The “mobile web” site.
Now repeat the experiment with:
http://www.dagbladet.no vs http://wap.dagbladet.no
or with a large amount of other websites which also provide a mobile-optimized version.
It would be cool if readers could come back and report about their iphone experience wrt regular-web vs mobile-optimized.
Luca
Hey Luca….
The issue really boils down to:
- One-Web is not equal to “best mobile user experience”
I emphasize that One-Web is about bringing the content as-is, per the content author’s intention, and I go back to the example of ads, which are constantly being dropped from adapted sites.
I don’t disagree with you (and others!) that to maximize the user experience, that to bring the right mobile experience, that customized/optimized-mobile-specific sites is the way to go.
Cheers,
ceo
> I emphasize that One-Web is about bringing the
> content as-is, per the content author’s intention
I see your point, but in this case I wonder if one-web isn’t a bit of a futile exercize. I am a “provocateur”. I know. Please let me explain. One defines one-web as the capability to access the full web from a mobile devices and declares victory on June 26 (or whenever the iPhone shipped). This is like climbing a mountain, placing the your little flag at the top, just to start getting back to earth one moment later.
If this is your definition of one web, you are bound to find out that for every user that access a regular web site on their phone, 100 use the mobile-optimized site because it is just so much faster, easier and cheaper to use.
At that point, what’s the point with educating developers about one-web? this makes no economic sense. Why even mention one-web? just build your regular website. Just avoid Flash!
Anyway, I am happy to see that GAP and WURFL have a shining future ahead
Luca
Funny thing is that I don’t even own an iPhone, but I use the iPhone as an example of client-side adaptation. In any case, I don’t mean to say that iPhone have saved the world!
OK, I’m at fault here of being a bit of an “idealist”, but I can’t help it. I’ve been too many times through the “same exercise” of content adaptation vs. customized content, and I see the day handsets will be powerful enough to do pure-client side adaption, keeping the intentions of the original author.
Today, being practical, and thanks to all for keeping me straight, yes, having to navigate and zooming becomes old quickly, and customized or adapted web-sites is the answer. And this is the reason why at eZee (my startup), we are creating adaption functionality in our platform; yes we are leveraging WURFL.
That said, it is OK to have wishful thinking, and continue talking on how to get to true “as-is” consumption of web content, while dealing with today’s reality.
ceo