Ideally, sites should be able to use CSS to serve the same page to a desktop machine with a 21" screen and to a handheld device with 3.5". I stopped holding my breath some time ago.

I don't think it's the resolution - see the BBC review, where resolution doesn't appear to be an issue on the iPhone/Touch as far as browsing is concerned.

I think you're spot on regarding the EDGE network though - it's the very reason I asked for a mobile/Internet Tablet optimised theme for this forum... a theme that is light on graphics in order to reduce bandwidth when surfing on a GPRS or even a 3G connection (3G speeds can be slow depending on signal and other factors), plus I'm currently paying per MB on my 3G connection! Any simplified layout that results from an optimised theme is also welcome simply because these devices are not desktops and still chug when processing pages with complex layouts (this includes this site - the pages load instantly on the N800 when using the Mobile II theme). One other thing I've noticed when using a dial up connection is that latency is high so pages with multiple external references (.js or .css) will take a lot longer to load due to the HTTP roundtrip, so reducing links is also advantageous (this means Web 2.0 apps could be a nightmare over a high latency connection).

I think it's good to see sites offering low bandwidth/simplified versions, but agree with others that it's wrong to label these as "iPhone" specific sites (blame the marketing boys for that!)

I just got a email from my hosting company yesterday with the follow:

You mean that thing from Apple, I forget its name..............Oh, the Newton ?





bun

I expect that mobile devices will eventually lead to significant changes in website design. Simplification and size reduction for starters. However, that will create the need for a more modal web, which could mean more popups. Then again, there are other ways of showing additional content, so perhaps most of the designers will just get more creative.

Yes, that thing was DOA.

I think we are going to wind up with some sort of 'thumbfriendly'.X.com. If that's 'handheld' or 'iphone' or 'mobile' doesn't really matter to me; nor does the excessive 'dumbing down' that mobile domains typically bring.

What I care about is layout and interface elements that don't assume individual pixel precision. The curse of most 'mobile' views is that they still assume a stylus. Stylii suck it. (along those lines, microb should consider making the 'hotspot' of links in the browser a bit larger, and easier to thumb.)

CSS by itself isn't enough.
The most important changes vis-a-vis a mobile 'look', is toning down excessive inline images, scripts, plugins and page size: not tasks that are properly achieved with css. (you can use CSS to hide such elements, but the browser will still download them) As 99% of the web is dynamically generated HTML these days, it's more appropriate for everyone if they simply add another rendering path in their code for alternate views.

The lack of proper support for alternate paths has more to do with lack of tangible ROI and penny-pinching development budgets: Mention gracefully-degrading versions of a site for various devices/browsers and watch a client's eyes glaze over. Invariably the script-free, lynx-friendly, mobile-friendly and ADA-compatible versions get cut.

i just wonder what happened to wml and wap.

i know facebook has a mobile phone friendly page at m.facebook.com. but i rarely use it as i get some "interesting" sertificate messages each time i try to log in...

btw, i suspect these "pages" are made using the guidelines apple released for "webapps" when iphone first showed up.

Great analysis, Roc. Hopefully the growing "portable internet" market will give site managers no choice but to change with the times... for the better.