That is the exact reason I am waiting for WM8. As a web developer the news that Microsoft was squeezing IE6 into Windows Mobile was incredibly disheartening. IE6 was nothing short of a failure for developers and users a like and this is a huge set back for Windows Mobile in general.
Was IE 6 really worse than IE 5 or 5.5? IE 6 improved its CSS rendering a lot, I thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco Augusto
This means that when a developer builds a mobile site they will have to essentially create a version that works with the Apple iPhone, Google Android and Opera browsers and then a hacked together one to make up for IE6's sever lack of standards compliant rendering.
Again, won't IE 6 still be better than the current IE Mobile?
And, if you can get decent handling of desktop sites in IE 6, why bother building mobile sites at all? Just use CSS and create a Handheld template. I've done that that for some simple sites, and it works pretty well.
For example, check out svvg.biz on your desktop and mobile browser. Notice how the navigation bar goes from vertical on the desktop to horizontal on the device? That's just a little bit of CSS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco Augusto
As a user you should probably never notice a difference unless the developer doesn't go through to make sure the site is IE6 compatible. As a developer I just want to hang my head and cry.
But users are the ones complaining about IE Mobile. Besides, developers should have already had their IE 6 sites working for years. If you're talking about building mobile-specific sites, see my last point.
Besides, nobody said there won't be some improvements, right? My original Motorola Q running WM 5 didn't support animated GIFs or frames in IE. An update added support for both. My Motorola Q9m now also supports IFrames (although I can't dynamically change the source; I have to manipulate the DOM to get rid of the existing IFrame and create a new one pointed at the new page).
Before 2006 or so, what was a better mobile browser than Pocket IE? If you can't name one, then Microsoft was certainly in the game.
Before 2006 I tried web browsing on my WM2003SE device with PIE, Opera, and something else (begins with an N). It was such a lousy and excruciating experience that I never even contemplated mobile web browsing again until a friend showed me his iPhone. Opera, even back then, was heads and shoulders above PIE but wasn't even close to something I would gladly use on a daily basis. If something is so bad that you would rather do without, then indeed, you were never in the game.
It's not that I find Safari to be great, but it is good enough that I use several times a day, even if that is mostly for Gmail, Google Reader, and to check up on my own web site.
Before 2006 I tried web browsing on my WM2003SE device with PIE, Opera, and something else (begins with an N).
Probably Access NetFront.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueSpear
If something is so bad that you would rather do without, then indeed, you were never in the game.
Well, if it's so bad that you wouldn't do it, it probably wasn't that important anyway. If it were truly something important, I think most people could suffer through it.
I subscribe to Google News alerts and occasionally click a link to check out the full stories. On some sites, it is very annoying (mainly because the Smartphone doesn't have a touch screen, so scrolling is very slow), but I can tolerate it. I also check IMDB occasionally, which sometimes requires a lot of scrolling, but usually gets me my answer.
Of course, there's another alternative -- Web applications. Some people think native applications that pull data from the Web are the next big thing and that trying to get a desktop browsing experience on a small screen is a fool's errand (which, to a degree, is probably true).
I think Web applications are great for those tasks that you do regularly, but they obviously won't work for ad hoc things where you normally start by Googling for something. Even if a Web app existed for what you were trying to do, I can't see bothering to download and install it for a one-time task.
Well, if it's so bad that you wouldn't do it, it probably wasn't that important anyway. If it were truly something important, I think most people could suffer through it.
If you want to continue on down the road to Splithairsville, that's a trip you can take on your own. Seeing that you are so insistent on defending the indefensible tells me more than anything else.
I've been in this game since I first received an HP clamshell that ran Microsoft's Handheld PC OS (version 1.1 IIRC) as a birthday present. I know the sorry history behind Microsoft' mobile efforts intimately believe me. Perhaps my disgust should better be aimed at myself for having been stroked along by Microsoft for as long as I was. Don't mistake my rants for those coming from a closed mind. If somehow Microsoft actually did decide to do something innovative and take a few chances, I would be enthusiastic to see what they do and to evaluate it. However I think the chances are far greater that I will accidentally discover cold fusion in the next week.
Was IE 6 really worse than IE 5 or 5.5? IE 6 improved its CSS rendering a lot, I thought.
IE6 was an improvement on IE5, but it was still nowhere near standards compliant and that leads developers to have to create a lot of hacks to get pages to display properly in IE and other browsers. The same is said for IE7. While it is a tiny bit better, it is still so far at the bottom of the standards totem poll that it is laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony99CA
Again, won't IE 6 still be better than the current IE Mobile?
And, if you can get decent handling of desktop sites in IE 6, why bother building mobile sites at all? Just use CSS and create a Handheld template. I've done that that for some simple sites, and it works pretty well.
For example, check out svvg.biz on your desktop and mobile browser. Notice how the navigation bar goes from vertical on the desktop to horizontal on the device? That's just a little bit of CSS.
But users are the ones complaining about IE Mobile. Besides, developers should have already had their IE 6 sites working for years. If you're talking about building mobile-specific sites, see my last point.
IE6 would be better than IE Mobile but it would still be seriously lacking when compared to the competition. Microsoft's focus should be in creating a solution that was either on par or better than Apple's, Google's and Opera's. I mean, they delayed the OS until 2009, they have time to do this
I can understand them wanting to take a browser with a small footprint and add it to the OS, but why not use the rendering engine of IE8 or even IE7? Why not just take these rendering engines and bundle them in a new smaller package and take away all the extra unneeded stuff? By the time WM7 is released IE8 should have been around and kicking for a while now.
Also even though a lot of mobile browsers can render pages the same as the desktop, in a lot of situations it is not the best solution. Before I even start development on any site I work on I gather all of my designers and developers together and we go over all the known statistics for a site. We look at browsers being used, average screen resolution of current visitors, average browser versions, how long they stay on a page, where they click, what elements garner the most attention and so on.
The last big site I launched that isn't currently NDA'd and I can talk about, Intel's Investor Relations (Intel Corporation - Investor Relations) would render fine in theory on a Android or iPhone or Opera Mobile browser but the site was designed with an average screen resolution of 1024x768 in mind. Even with zooming in and out, it would not be an optimal browsing experience on a mobile device. This is why even though these new browsers render the same you are starting to see more and more companies create mobile versions of their sites that streamline information into an easily accessible manner and does not involve you scrolling left and right but up and down, which is more natural and less annoying to the average user.
It all really comes down to screen real estate and a server lack of it on mobile devices side and if you have a large population of users that are using a device with a screen resolution of 320x240, it would be easier for them and a lot less stressful for the user to visit a site that was designed for that resolution in mind.
Web design for large audiences is a very tricky science, but when you hit that sweet spot in form and function, it's a pretty magical feeling
Though, the rub here is that we'll need to wait until sometime in 2010 to see this live, and honestly, we may have HTC handsets integrated into our minds well before then."
Definitely!
In 2006 I already used Firefox Mobile aka. Minimo.
It was *completely* developed by *one single person*, Doug Turner!
He was hired in 2004 by Mozilla only for the development of Minimo!
And damn, did he do a fine job!
To that time they already knew that they HAVE TO come with a mobile version of Firefox.
BUT: Since 2007 Minimo isn't developed any further!
NOW they tell us to wait for Firefox Mobile until 2010?
Dish them!
This is why even though these new browsers render the same you are starting to see more and more companies create mobile versions of their sites that streamline information into an easily accessible manner and does not involve you scrolling left and right but up and down, which is more natural and less annoying to the average user.
But with Opera Mobile you don't need a special mobile version of any web site?!
But with Opera Mobile you don't need a special mobile version of any web site?!
I think you missed the point of Rocco's reply. He was replying to my basically raising the same point that you just did.
To paraphrase his reply, even if the mobile browser rendered the page perfectly and had good reformatting and zooming, specifically tailoring the site to the screen size being used gives a better user experience.
And, to a point, I agree with that. I'm into usability and that's quite true. The downside is that you're basically developing the same site twice (once for a desktop PC and once for mobile devices). If you think having to create workarounds for different browsers' rendering bugs is fun, imagine developing the same site twice and having to deal with the variety of mobile browsers (and their bugs). (I won't even go into the variety of screen sizes out there -- do you develop the mobile site for the smallest, the most common or both? Blechhh.)
I suppose a big company like Intel can afford to pay for that, but smaller companies (and individuals) won't (or can't).
Seeing that you are so insistent on defending the indefensible tells me more than anything else.
Your oxymoron, while cute, is wrong. It may be indefensible to you, but that's just your opinion.
No, Pocket IE isn't a great experience, but it's not totally awful, either IMHO. Again, it's matter of taste and how much you're willing to put up with, but it works reasonably well in many cases.
As I've said, I think Pocket IE was fine in its day, but Microsoft rested on their laurels far too long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueSpear
Don't mistake my rants for those coming from a closed mind. If somehow Microsoft actually did decide to do something innovative and take a few chances, I would be enthusiastic to see what they do and to evaluate it. However I think the chances are far greater that I will accidentally discover cold fusion in the next week.
They have done something innovative -- DeepFish. I just don't know what happened to it.
Steve
P.S. I hope you do discover cold fusion. That would solve a lot of our energy problems better than any politicians.
Ie 6
If it were truly something important, I think most people could suffer through it.
Linear Mode
LinkBacks (?)
