Get Updates in your Feed Reader
iPhone-ready Websites
July 11, 2007
The Safari browser on the iPhone is a lot of fun to use. It renders websites like a real browser, not some “mobile” browser. I find myself using it a lot for surfing - while watching television, riding around town, waiting for appointments. It’s the real browser experience. It makes the iPhone a mini-computer.
So, I have to ask…
Why are we building versions of our sites that target the iPhone? The cool thing about the iPhone is that it renders the “real” web just as it is.
OK, OK, so maybe offering an alternative version of the site for the iPhone is a good idea. But please don’t sniff out the user agent and then force me to use something other than your regular design and layout just because I’m using a iPhone browser. I didn’t buy an iPhone for the “mobile web” experience.
It’s a fair question. I have two answers, which I think are reasonable:
1. Even though the iPhone renders sites “just like a desktop computer,” the experience isn’t the same as a desktop computer. Having to zoom in and having to wait for pokey EDGE speed make it different. It’s a lot *less* different than any other phone, but it’s still different.
2. The iPhone UI has a look and feel all its own, and like Mac users, iPhone users seem to want apps that are designed in line with the platform’s UI. Most websites are not.
I could counter your question with another: Now that Parallels enables us to have Windows applications running side-by-side Mac apps, why are we bothering to create Mac apps?
:)
-----
I agree, Ryan—I’m perfectly okay surfing the web with iPhone (it’s a lot more compact than the laptop while watching TV, for sure, and the zooming in is a lot of fun, still).
But I think Jeff’s point, and the one I would support “iPhone development” is with apps… web pages that are more application than presentation of information.
So.. iPhone only Twitter, chat, etc., but normal, standards-compliant blogs, news sites, etc.
iPhone users definitely shouldn’t be siphoned off into a separate universe. Give us full versions of your sites and then let us choose to use some alternative interface you’ve developed that takes advantage of the touch interface or makes things easier to work with on a very small screen. I think some of the highly interactive sites like Twitter and Digg are doing the right thing with their iPhone offerings.
Ryan, just saw your update (the last paragraph that starts with, “OK, OK, so maybe offering an alternative version of the site for the iPhone is a good idea. But please don’t sniff out the user agent..."). I couldn’t agree with you more on that point.
While I do think there’s some value in creating iPhone-specific versions of apps, they should always be *optional*, and iPhone users should definitely always be able to get to the full version, as well.
I couldn’t agree more. What’s the worst is when you go to a site like http://www.mlb.com/ and are redirected to http://wap.mlb.com/ without even so much as a prompt or confirm. Sure the WAP loads lickety split over edge but there are times when I’d like to read an article or browse player profiles not just check delayed scores and outdated standings.
Jeff, that last para should’ve been in the original entry when I posted it. It shoulda have come across as an update.
I’m in agreement with Jeff here. Sure forcing you to use a site just so they can provide you with what they deem as a better experience is wrong. But giving people versions of sites that take into the mobile context (and the iPhone itself) as an option is a great idea.
As long as someone doesn’t serve me a special mobile version of a mojito just because I have one the table then It’s all good.
I agree.
Just give people some choices - if they liked it, they’re going to use it.
And how about us people with webkit-based mobile browsers (Nokia N95) who could use some of these iphone-optimised sites but can’t because they check for the iphone specifically?
It feels like the good (?) old Netscape vs IE days when you got a message telling you to switch browsers (if not screen resolution and font settings) if you wanted in.
I’m confused (again) :)
Too right - It does kind of defile the whole approach Apple were going for. I mean fair enough if the purpose is to create an online application to match the iPhone UI, but the day websites start to offer compulsory variations on their pages will be the day someone comes up with a way to spoof the user agent on the iPhone!
I agree that being sent to the WAP version of a site automatically isn’t helpful, esp. when you have a full browser to utilize on the iPhone.
My question is this: with iPhone now utilizing a real browser - and the likely scenario that other new phones will do the same - are the days of building phone (WAP) versions of websites numbered? I realize this is a bit of a rhetorical question that will be answered in time. Just curious about people’s thoughts.
But, I agree with Greg’s point about being given the option. The iPhone version of Digg for example does make it easier to browse content on the iPhone without pinch browsing.
On the other hand, if they do it right, the iPhone version can be much better than the original and much more functional on the iPhone than the regular site. Take for example, Amazons iPhone site. It’s really really good. I like it better than browsing Amazon on my desktop!