Both Judy & Lorrie wondered about issues involved in developing website for new devices like smart phones. I'm not an expert; I use my cell phone only to make and receive calls. I can't answer Lorrie's technical questions, except to observe that the entire industry seems in great flux. New devices, with new operating systems, are appearing every day. My guess: W3C can't keep up with the technological changes. My wife, though, has gone through a series of "smart phones" -- most recently a Blackberry and an Android. She recently switched to the Android's larger screen, because the Blackberry's screen was too small to read the Google calendar & maps she needs for a new job. So, that brings up the screen size issue. By the time you get down to a 4-inch diagonal, you're talking pretty small and there are only two ways to show a page designed for an 11-inch (or larger) diagonal: (1) Shrink everything down to an unreadable size or (2) Show only part of the page at a time. I vaguely recall that some sites have "Lite" versions designed for these devices. The "tag-readers" referred to are, I think, called "QR codes"; they're graphic images. They can, of course, be used as links like any other image. They are roughly analogous to bar codes, but bar codes are one-dimensional and QR codes are two-dimensional. QR codes are the hot new thing; they can automatically charge your card for a Starbucks coffee. I'm fairly sure I will NOT be redesigning my websites to fit on 3- or 4-inch screens for these reasons: 1. It's a lot of work -- a total re-thinking of layouts and designs -- even before getting to implementation. a. You'd need an image for the code; it would need to follow the protocols. b. An app for the QR code would need to be built or obtained. c. A means of getting the image & app on viewers' phones would be needed. 2. Detail would be lost; there just isn't room for everything. Do I want to sacrifice content? 3. Would anyone want to see what I could produce that would fit on those devices? 4. People interested in genealogy tend to be older, with lesser eyesight than 20-somethings. Could they read the product? (My eyesight, for example, won't let me read my wife's laptop.) 5. I don't have a profit motive; I'm not expecting income from the sites. If viewer traffic is less than maximum, so be it. I'm not sure I completely agree with McCluhan's "The medium IS the message.", but certainly the medium controls the message. Just as the World Wide Web is a very different medium than print on paper, the new Web-enabled smart phones are a different medium than the Web seen on a laptop or desktop. -rt_/)

Before I leave this topic... Since I don't have a cell phone and never used one to go onto the Internet, could someone tell me -- 1. Besides font size issues etc with the tiny screen, do Internet enabled phones allow a user to click links on a regular/ordinary/html webpage. 2. Is cell phone Internet just used primarily to play games and get addresses? 3. If cell phones can't really see the Internet content very well, what's the purpose of Internet-enabled phones? One person said they managed to do one E-mail on a cellphone---that seems (to me) like little productivity for high cost. Judy On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Ralph Taylor <rt-sails@comcast.net> wrote: > Both Judy & Lorrie wondered about issues involved in developing website for > new devices like smart phones. > > I'm not an expert; I use my cell phone only to make and receive calls. I > can't answer Lorrie's technical questions, except to observe that the > entire > industry seems in great flux. New devices, with new operating systems, are > appearing every day. My guess: W3C can't keep up with the technological > changes. > > My wife, though, has gone through a series of "smart phones" -- most > recently a Blackberry and an Android. She recently switched to the > Android's > larger screen, because the Blackberry's screen was too small to read the > Google calendar & maps she needs for a new job. > > So, that brings up the screen size issue. By the time you get down to a > 4-inch diagonal, you're talking pretty small and there are only two ways to > show a page designed for an 11-inch (or larger) diagonal: (1) Shrink > everything down to an unreadable size or (2) Show only part of the page at > a > time. I vaguely recall that some sites have "Lite" versions designed for > these devices. > > The "tag-readers" referred to are, I think, called "QR codes"; they're > graphic images. They can, of course, be used as links like any other image. > They are roughly analogous to bar codes, but bar codes are one-dimensional > and QR codes are two-dimensional. QR codes are the hot new thing; they can > automatically charge your card for a Starbucks coffee. > > I'm fairly sure I will NOT be redesigning my websites to fit on 3- or > 4-inch > screens for these reasons: > 1. It's a lot of work -- a total re-thinking of layouts and designs -- even > before getting to implementation. > a. You'd need an image for the code; it would need to follow the > protocols. > b. An app for the QR code would need to be built or obtained. > c. A means of getting the image & app on viewers' phones would be > needed. > 2. Detail would be lost; there just isn't room for everything. Do I want to > sacrifice content? > 3. Would anyone want to see what I could produce that would fit on those > devices? > 4. People interested in genealogy tend to be older, with lesser eyesight > than 20-somethings. Could they read the product? (My eyesight, for > example, > won't let me read my wife's laptop.) > 5. I don't have a profit motive; I'm not expecting income from the sites. > If > viewer traffic is less than maximum, so be it. > > I'm not sure I completely agree with McCluhan's "The medium IS the > message.", but certainly the medium controls the message. Just as the World > Wide Web is a very different medium than print on paper, the new > Web-enabled > smart phones are a different medium than the Web seen on a laptop or > desktop. > -rt_/) > >