Sugar Free

The term "mobile web" has always bugged me. It is an attempt to segment the web into this kind of website for this device and that kind of website for other types - neither of which are compatible with each other. This is a false dichotomy.

In this day and age, more and more devices are web-enabled. Some have browsers, some don't. Mobile phones are probably the biggest category of devices that are web capable and have web browsers. These mobile devices range from older Nokia green-screen to fancy iPod Touch high dpi screen. These are both mobile devices, but can access and display the web in very different ways. The concept of a "mobile web" experience is completely different just between these two types of mobile devices.

The misconception is that the "mobile web" is about the device. A phone has mobility, but so does a laptop. "Mobile" actually describes the situation, the lifestyle, the context.

The iPhone and iPod Touch browser is WebKit, which is a complete full desktop type browser. When sitting at home on the couch watching TV, I am happy to use the iPhone to browse traditional websites and wade through templates designed for full-size monitors. I am in no hurry, usually looking for supplementary information about someone I just saw in a movie or checking weather for tomorrow. If browsing requires a few extra navigation clicks through multi-levels of navigation items, then so be it. On the flip-side, sometime I am at sitting at my desk looking at a website which is so poorly organized, the "mobile site" is actually more helpful. As well as, when I am running between airport terminals trying to catch a flight, I don't want to click through a site designed for people sitting in-front of a 19 inch monitor with a mouse and a keyboard. We all probably can put ourselves in similar situations and when we look back, it is not about the device we have in-front of us, it is everything but that, it is the environment around us we are really interested in.

I would argue that the term "mobile web" is the wrong description, something we should stop propagating. When we develop new "mobile" sites we should try to think of them as "sugar-free" websites. We cut all the corporate jargon, mission statements and consider the customers' needs and the situations in which they would be needing this information. They are probably in a rush, under pressure and/or doing three things at once.

These activities could be at a desk at work, while on the morning commute or sitting in a cafe in a foreign country. By cutting back all the un-needed navigation and fluff, the customer is left only with the bare minimum useful functionality. This new site concept is less mobile device centric and more about "sugar free" information. So whenever we start any new project, we keep that mantra at the forefront as we develop.

Continuing to talk about designing "mobile websites" continues to hamper adoption. As the number of mobile phones surpass that of traditional computers, and the variety of mobile devices continues to grow, the "mobile web" will become more popular than "The Web", at which point it just IS the web. Like when alternative music became mainstream - so what is the alternative then? By framing the conversation not as "mobile vs. traditional", but instead, "sugar-free vs. full-fat" (or more aptly - minimal, common functionality vs. every-edge-case and the kitchen sink) everyone benefits. This doesn't mean that your site is not allowed to detect and cater on a device-to-device basis, but instead, device targeting is in the details which make a site more useful - they don't make a site "mobile", they compliment your mobility no matter which type of site you visit, "sugar-free" or "full-fat".

-- brian suda
suda.co.uk

Posted by Alfie