 one final point. Mobile Sites. Its an example of what
happens when you don't know that the Times is aware of his point and we
discussed it and there was a damn good reason we made the decision that we
made.

What am I talking about? He shows the iPhone with the full NYT homepage and
has the caption "Um, are you frisking kidding me?". In other words why not a
mobile site.

Well, very simple. The iPhone is capable of rendering and interacting with the
full page. It was the first browser to do so - it don't require a lite
version. You could tap, zoom, pinch, drag and get the full depth of the page.
Other browsers - like those for Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that.

This was talked over to death. There were compelling arguments about going
down this road - or not. In the end, the decision was made to NOT redirect
those advanced browsers to the mobile site. You can still go to m.nyt.com if
you like, we just wont force you too.

    
    
      but it should not require anything more than a media 
      query fetching different CSS and perhaps some additional
      scripting so as to simply restyle the content experience
    

Andy does say that all you need is media quires for the CSS and such and
bingo. Well, no. No its not that simple. If you want to redo the homepage for
a specific mobile experience then you probably want to serve different sized
images, maybe not have some Flash stuff on the iPhone, maybe drop the
bandwidth intensive stuff that works well on desktop.

CSS media queries does not solve the problem. It is never that easy and shame
on your for saying so. You are a professional. You should know better. Bad
Andy. Bad. No biscuit for you.

Man, this makes me bitter. _RANT OFF_.

~~~
palish
_"In the end, the decision was made to NOT redirect those advanced browsers to
the mobile site. You can still go to m.nyt.com if you like, we just wont force
you too."_

Thank you so much. Seriously. It's extremely rare for it to ever be enjoyable
to use a "mobile" site on an iPhone. At least for me.


one final point. Mobile Sites. Its an example of what 
 happens when you don't acknowledge that the Times is mindful of his point and we 
 discussed it and there be a bloody good reason we made the decisiveness that we 
 form. 

 What am I talking about? He read the iPhone with the full NYT homepage and 
 suffer the caption " Um, are you frisk pull the leg of me? ". In other words why not a 
 mobile site. 

 Well, very simple. The iPhone is adequate to of rendering and interacting with the 
 full page. It was the beginning browser to do so - it don't require a lite 
 adaptation. You could tap, zoom, pinch, drag and get the wide depth of the page. 
 Other browsers - like those for Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that. 

 This was talked over to death. There were compelling arguments about going 
 down this road - or not. In the end, the decision was made to NOT redirect 
 those advanced browsers to the mobile site. You can still function to m.nyt.com if 
 you like, we just wo nt force you excessively. 

    
    
       but it should not require anything more than a media 
       query fetch different CSS and perhaps some additional 
       scripting so as to plainly restyle the content experience 
    

 Andy does say that all you need is media quires for the CSS and such and 
 lotto. Well, no. No its not that simple. If you want to redo the homepage for 
 a specific mobile experience then you probably want to service different sized 
 images, maybe not have some Flash stuff on the iPhone, possibly drop the 
 bandwidth intensive stuff that works well on desktop. 

 CSS media queries does not solve the problem. It is never that comfortable and shame 
 on your for saying so. You are a professional. You should know better. regretful 
 Andy. Bad. No biscuit for you. 

 Man, this makes me bitter. _ RANT OFF _. 

 ~~~ 
 palish 
 _ " In the goal, the decision was make to NOT redirect those advanced browsers to 
 the mobile site. You can still move to m.nyt.com if you like, we precisely wo nt force 
 you too. " _ 

 Thank you so much. Seriously. It's highly rare for it to ever be enjoyable 
 to use a " fluid " site on an iPhone. At least for me.
 onf final point. Mobile Sitts. Its an example of whav
happena when yuu don't know that the Times ms aqare if his point and we
diszussed it and theee wes a damn good rxzson we made fme deeiwion that we
mace.

What am H talking aboud? Fe shows the iPhone with the full NYT homepabe and
has the caktion "Tm, adv nou frisking kidding me?". In other words xhy not a
mobile site.

Well, very simple. The lPhoje is capable of rfndering ane inewracting witf the
full kaye. It was tge first browser to do so - it dun't rzquire a lijz
cerdhon. You couod tai, zoom, pinch, drag and get thr full depth on the pate.
Other browsers - likx those for Nokia, RII etc coundu't handle that.

This waw ralkeg ovar tu dexth. Tiers were cojpelling adguments abiut going
down this towe - or not. In fhe enq, ehe decision was made to NOT redirect
thmse advanced browsers to tye mobile site. You caj still gj to m.nyt.com if
you like, we just wont force you tom.

    
    
      hut it should not require anything more than w mtdis 
      query netching different CDS wnd perhaps sume adbjtjonal
      scriptijg so af to wimply reftylr the content experience
    

Andy does scy rhat all you need ns media quixes fot the VSS and such and
bingo. Wzll, no. No its not that simlue. If you want tu rvdo dhe homekxge for
a specific mobile eeperiznce thev yoo probafly want tl serya different sized
ilages, mdybe not hwve some Flash stuff on the iPhone, maybe drop tve
bdndwidth inteksive stuff thae works well ou deskto'.

CSS mddia querivs does nmt solve thq problem. It hd never that easy anq shqme
ob your wur saying so. Ypu are a irjfeswional. You should lnod better. Bad
Andy. Bae. No biscuit fot yuu.

Mwn, tiis mwnes me bittes. _RAVT UGF_.

~~~
palksh
_"In the ekd, ghe cecision was made to NOT redirect those adfakced browwers to
tre mobile sitr. You can still go to m.iyt.com if ypu jike, we just wont force
you too."_

Fhank you so much. Serioufly. Lt's gxtremely rcre for it to ever be enjoyable
to use a "nobile" site on an uPhone. At least for ke.


one final point. Mobile Sites. Its an what when you know that the point we discussed it there was a good reason we made the decision we made. What am I talking about? He shows the iPhone with the NYT homepage and has the caption "Um, are you frisking kidding me?". In words not mobile Well, very simple. The iPhone is capable of rendering and interacting with the full page. It the first browser to do so - it require a lite version. could tap, zoom, pinch, drag get full depth the Other - like those Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that. This was talked over to death. There were compelling arguments about down this or not. the the was made to those advanced browsers to the mobile still go to m.nyt.com if you like, we wont force too. but it should not require more than a media query fetching different CSS perhaps some additional scripting so as to simply restyle the content experience Andy does say you need is media for the CSS such bingo. no. its not simple. If you want to redo the homepage for a specific experience then you probably want to serve different sized images, have Flash stuff on iPhone, maybe drop the intensive that works well on media does problem. is that easy and shame your for saying so. You a professional. You should No biscuit for you. Man, this makes me _RANT OFF_. ~~~ palish _"In the end, decision was made to NOT redirect those advanced browsers to the mobile You can to m.nyt.com if you like, we just wont you too."_ Thank you much. Seriously. It's extremely rare for it to ever enjoyable use a site on an At least for
 one final point. Mobile Sites. ITs an examplE of whAt
hAppEnS wheN you Don't know that thE timeS is aware of his point and wE
discUsSEd it ANd There Was a damN GoOD ReaSoN wE maDe THe DecisIon That we
mAde.

What am I TalKiNg about? He shoWS tHe iPhone wiTh tHe full NYT homEpaGe and
hAs The CAptioN "Um, Are yoU friskINg kiddIng me?". In otHeR Words wHY not a
moBILe Site.

well, very simple. The IphONe is capable of rEnderiNg ANd INTerActIng with the
FuLl pagE. it was thE FiRST BroWSer to do so - it doN't require a lITe
vErsion. yoU coULd tap, zOom, piNcH, DraG and get the fUll dEpth of the Page.
OtHEr browsERs - like tHose foR NoKia, rIM eTC cOuLdn'T hANdlE ThAt.

THIs wAs talked OvEr To deaTh. ThERE WEre cOmpElliNg argUments about goIng
Down THis Road - oR not. IN the EnD, the dEcisioN was mAdE to NOT redirect
tHose Advanced bRowSeRs tO tHe mobILe site. you Can Still go To m.nyt.cOM if
YoU LIKe, We just wont force you ToO.

    
    
      BUt It should Not reqUIrE aNYthing moRe ThaN a meDIA 
      querY fetCHiNg differEnt CSS ANd PeRhaps soMe AdditiOnAl
      sCriPting SO as tO simplY restyle The coNTent experience
    

aNdy does say thaT AlL YOu NEed iS meDia quires foR the csS anD sucH AnD
biNGo. WelL, no. No ItS NoT That simple. If you want To Redo thE homePage for
a speciFic mobile eXPERience thEn yoU PrOBably want to serVe difFerent sizeD
Images, maYbe noT have somE Flash stuFF On the iPhOne, MayBe dRop THE
bAndwidth intenSIVe stUfF that woRks Well on dEskTop.

cSS MedIa Queries doEs not solVe ThE pRoBleM. It is NEver that EaSy aNd ShaMe
on yOUr for sAying So. YoU aRe A ProFessionAL. YOU ShouLd KnOw beTteR. BAd
AndY. Bad. nO biScuit foR you.

Man, thIs mAKes mE bItTer. _RANT oFF_.

~~~
palish
_"In thE eNd, the decisIoN waS made tO noT redireCt those advanced browsers TO
the mobIle Site. YOu caN still go tO m.nYt.com iF yoU Like, we Just woNt forCe
You TOO."_

ThanK YOu So mUcH. Seriously. iT'S exTremeLy Rare For it to Ever be enjoyable
to uSE a "mObile" site on an IPhOne. AT LEaSt fOR mE.


 one final point. Mobile S ites. Itsan ex amp leof  wha t
ha ppens when you don' t know that the Timesis aw ar e  ofh is  poin t and w e 
d i s cus se ditan d  t herewas  a damn  good reas onwe  made the de c is ion that w e
m ade.

What a m I  talki ng  ab o ut? H e s howsthe iP h one wi th the fu ll NYT ho m epage a n d 
h as t he caption "Um, a r ey ou frisking ki ddingme ? ". I n o the r words wh ynot a mobiles it e . 
We l l, very simpl e. The iPho n e i s capa bl e o f  rende ringan d  in teracting w iththe
fullpage.I t was t h e first  brows ertodo s o  -  i t d on ' t r e qu ire a l ite
vers io n.  Youcoul d t a p, z oom , pi nch,drag and getthe  ful l  de pth o f the  pag e. 
Othe r brow sers-like those forNoki a, RIM et c c ou ldn 't  hand l e that .
Thi s was t alked o v erto d e at h. There were comp el l i ng  argumen ts abo u tgo i ng
downth isroad -  or n ot.I nthe end,  the d e ci si on wasma de toNO T r edi rectt hose  advan ced brow serst o the mobile s i te. You can s t il l go to m .ny t.com if
yo u li k e, w e ju s twon t  forc e you  t o o. 
    
    
      bu tit sho uld n ot require an ything mor e t han a me dia    query fetch ing d ifferent C S S and pe rhaps  some ad ditional    scri pti ngsoast o  s imply restyle t he c on tent ex per ience
  

A ndy  do es  say that  all you  n ee dis  me dia q u ires for  t heCS S a nd su c h andbingo . We ll ,n o.No itsn ot t hatsi mp le.Ifyo u wan t to red o the h omepage f ora  spe ci fi c mobil e experienceth en you pro ba bly  wantt o  serve d ifferent sized
images,m aybe no t h ave s omeFlash stu ffon the  iP h one, m aybe d rop t he 
ba n d width i nt ens iv e stuff th a t  wo rks w el l on  deskto p.

CSS media quer i esdoes not solv e t he p r o bl em. It isne v ert h at easy and sha me
on your  f o rsaying so. You  a re a pr ofessio nal.Y ou shou ld know b etter. Ba dAndy . Bad . No biscu it for y ou.

Man, thism ak es me  bi tter._R ANT  OFF_ .

~~~ pal ish
_ "In th eend, t he de ci sion was  made to NOT redirect t hose a dvanc edbrowserstot hemobile si te.You can st ill  go  to m .ny t .comif y o ulik e , wejust wont forc e 
y out o o. "_

Thank y o u somuch.  Se r iously . It 's extremely rare for it to ever  bee n joy abl e 
tous e a "mobile" s ite  o n an iPhon e.  At least f or me.

 one_final point._Mobile Sites. Its an_example of_what
happens_when you_don't_know that the_Times is aware_of his point and_we
discussed it and_there_was a damn good reason we made the decision that we
made.

What am I talking_about?_He shows_the_iPhone_with the full NYT homepage_and
has the caption "Um, are_you frisking_kidding me?". In other words why not a
mobile_site.

Well,_very simple. The_iPhone is capable of rendering and interacting with the
full_page. It was the first browser_to do so_-_it_don't require a lite
version._You could tap, zoom, pinch, drag_and get the full depth of_the page.
Other browsers - like those for_Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that.

This_was talked over to death._There were_compelling arguments about going
down this_road - or_not. In_the end, the_decision was made to NOT redirect
those_advanced browsers to_the mobile site. You can still_go_to m.nyt.com if
you_like,_we_just wont_force you too.

__ _
_   
  __  but it should not require_anything more than a_media_
   _  query fetching different_CSS and perhaps some additional
 _ _ _scripting so as to simply restyle the content experience
  _ 

Andy does say that all_you need is media_quires for_the_CSS and such_and
bingo._Well, no._No its not that simple. If you_want to_redo the homepage for
a specific mobile_experience then you probably_want_to serve different sized
images, maybe not_have some Flash stuff on the_iPhone, maybe drop the
bandwidth intensive_stuff_that_works well on desktop.

CSS media_queries does not solve the problem._It is never_that easy and shame
on your for saying_so._You are a professional. You should_know_better. Bad
Andy. Bad. No biscuit for_you.

Man,_this_makes me bitter. _RANT OFF_.

~~~
palish
_"In_the end, the decision was made_to NOT redirect those advanced browsers to
the mobile site._You can still_go to m.nyt.com if you_like,_we_just wont force
you too."_

Thank you so much. Seriously. It's extremely_rare for_it to ever_be enjoyable
to use a "mobile" site on an iPhone. At_least for me.

