Let's Make Doomworld Responsive (Mobile Friendly)

SYS said:

if I really, really, need to

The bias towards it because you don't use them to browse doomworld doesn't mean others don't.

SYS said:

You know, vs the machine that you will inevitably use to play Doom & Pwads on.
EDIT: It's the one thing your shiny statistics overlook.

Being sarcastic doesn't help get your point across any better than it would have without. While your point is valid it still doesn't detract from the following facts:

1. Having the site optimized for mobile does not change how the desktop site is displayed. At all.
   
2. You don't have to do any of the work. As a member of the community I'm willing to put in the work to get this in place, not for only myself but for those in the community who do in fact use the mobile devices they have.
   
3. I play pwads on my phone too, so having the ability to comfortably review a pwad from the device I played it on shouldn't be too much to ask, should it?
   
4. The statistics used were to help explain and make a stronger case or answer to another user's concerns. The internet is now more widely consumed on a mobile phone. You would be right in saying that these stats don't relate to Doomworld. Currently any statistics relating to Doomworld's mobile usage will likely be low and less favorable because the site isn't yet optimized.
   

Dragonfly said:

The bias towards it because you don't use them to browse doomworld doesn't mean others don't.

As-is the bias towards having mobile because you use mobile.

Dragonfly said:

Having the site optimized for mobile does not change how the desktop site is displayed. At all.

Not my concern.

Dragonfly said:

You don't have to do any of the work. As a member of the community I'm willing to put in the work to get this in place, not for only myself but for those in the community who do in fact use the mobile devices they have.

Linguica will do what needs to be done, if it needs to be done.

Dragonfly said:

I play pwads on my phone too, so having the ability to comfortably review a pwad from the device I played it on shouldn't be too much to ask, should it?

You use a touch screen to play pwads?

Dragonfly said:

You would be right in saying that these stats don't relate to Doomworld.

Thank you.

SYS, if you don't like it, you can go play somewhere else. There's lots of other threads on this forum.

SYS said:

As-is the bias towards having mobile because you use mobile.

I use both. Hence the concern that desktop would need to remain unchanged.

SYS said:

Not my concern.

If you say so.

SYS said:

Linguica will do what needs to be done, if it needs to be done.

Say, if Linguica just did this, rather than someone who isn't Linguica suggesting and offering to do the work, would you react with such ill manners? Probably not.

SYS said:

You use a touch screen to play pwads?

It's far, far less superior to the control of keyboard and mouse, however, yes, I do use a touchscreen from time to time. In particular, when I'm away from home for a few days with a couple of hours to burn.

SYS said:

Thank you.

Dragonfly said:

Being sarcastic doesn't help get your point across any better than it would have without.

Clonehunter said:

SYS, if you don't like it, you can go play somewhere else. There's lots of other threads on this forum.

Can't you see that I'm having an extremely important discussion that is relevant to the progression of humanity?

Dragonfly said:

I use both. Hence the concern that desktop would need to remain unchanged.

But it's already unchanged.

Dragonfly said:

Say, if Linguica just did this, rather than someone who isn't Linguica suggesting and offering to do the work, would you react with such ill manners? Probably not.

Linguica wouldn't be doing it for money or to expand his portfolio. But that would be his decision. Secondly if he did the update, it would be a blurb on the frontpage after the fact.

Dragonfly said:

It's far, far less superior to the control of keyboard and mouse, however, yes, I do use a touchscreen from time to time. In particular, when I'm away from home for a few days with a couple of hours to burn.

Which might affect your ability to give a proper playthrough for a proper review would it not? Not that reviews are everything.

Dragonfly said:

I agree with the option to disable the optimisations. I think I'll have to take a look at how the site displays on firefox for android, at least for the time being.

Here are some screenshots from my phone (Android 5.1.1 and Firefox):





EDIT: Forgot the resize...

I voted yes, this one seems like a no-brainer to me. Additional options for different displays are always a good thing. Anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong and will be attending detention after school.

SYS said:

Can't you see that I'm having an extremely important discussion that is relevant to the progression of humanity?

[...]

But it's already unchanged.

You're unbelievable, sys. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

SYS said:

Linguica wouldn't be doing it for money or to expand his portfolio. But that would be his decision. Secondly if he did the update, it would be a blurb on the frontpage after the fact.

I haven't once implied that I would do this for money. Because I won't. As for adding it to a portfolio, I wouldn't bother - I've not updated my portfolio for quite some time as I'm not looking for additional paid work.

SYS said:

Which might affect your ability to give a proper playthrough for a proper review would it not? Not that reviews are everything.

Of course it would, but the review would reflect that.

yukib1t said:

Here are some screenshots from my phone (Android 5.1.1 and Firefox)

This is showing the reason for making the forums responsive - the text is absolutely tiny when you consider the actual size of the screen - compare the clock top-right to the font-size of the text of most of the link elements - Being able to precisely tap on these with one's thumb can be incredibly tricky, even with all the faff of zooming in. The tiny text size is particularly noticeable in this screenshot.

Doomkid said:

I voted yes, this one seems like a no-brainer to me. Additional options for different displays are always a good thing. Anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong and will be attending detention after school.

Haha! It's nice to see someone talk logically about how it's a good thing.

It's tiny...? Did you click the images? They're thumbnails, with the link on them being to the full-sized image. Or, maybe I'm just used to smaller text. It looks just a bit smaller on my phone (Nexus 6) compared to my desktop. Either way, I stand by my request to keep whatever mobile option comes about optional.

yukib1t said:

It's tiny...? Did you click the images? They're thumbnails, with the link on them being to the full-sized image.

I did. Did you read my comment about using the clock in the top right as a comparison?

yukib1t said:

Or, maybe I'm just used to smaller text. It looks just a bit smaller on my phone (Nexus 6) compared to my desktop.

The Nexus 6 does have a somewhat larger screen than the average, but it is still smaller text than is comfortable to read. And again, repeating myself, the links are more or less all too small to interact with, without the risk of tapping the incorrect link. This should be easily possible without needing to zoom in.

yukib1t said:

Either way, I stand by my request to keep whatever mobile option comes about optional.

And if it's possible, that would be a logical implementation as mentioned many times throughout this thread.

Most sites use m. instead of as a way to differentiate mobile from desktop sites. I'm pretty sure Ling of all people would know to do something as basic as this.

SavageCorona said:

Most sites use m. instead of as a way to differentiate mobile from desktop sites. I'm pretty sure Ling of all people would know to do something as basic as this.

Most sites do not do this unless there's an explicit reason to do so such as different functionality from mobile platform to other platforms. Also, this would likely require user agent sniffing to provide a redirect to the correct website.

I work in the web industry and have been a professional within the industry for over 4 years. Since I started doing professional web design the m. subsite mentality has been completely eradicated in place of responsive web design, which uses stylesheets to optimise the way the webpage is presented without requiring two different copies of the same site.

I admit that I know next to nothing about web design, but I am of the opinion that, for 2 platforms different from each other as much as desktop vs. mobile are, it would be better to have 2 different urls as 2 different interfaces to view/access the same site's database, so that in case of critical problems with one of the interfaces on the user's device, the user can simply type a slightly different url to access the other one, despite being less optimal, because it would be at least usable for him.

SYS said:

SYS is dumb. If someone wants to put the effort towards being Linguica's webslave, lets them do it. Besides, SYST has nothing to complain about, he doesn't use the phone for Doomworld.

Jaxxoon R said:

SYS is dumb.

...and a prick, to boot

scifista42 said:

I admit that I know next to nothing about web design, but I am of the opinion that, for 2 platforms different from each other as much as desktop vs. mobile are, it would be better to have 2 different urls as 2 different interfaces to view/access the same site's database, so that in case of critical problems with one of the interfaces on the user's device, the user can simply type a slightly different url to access the other one, despite being less optimal, because it would be at least usable for him.

That's not a bad argument for the subdomain, that said it is potentially more work for those involved. If Linguica and/or anyone else of authority here in Doomworld decided to use an m.doomworld.com variant I'd still be willing to work on the CSS.

Jaxxoon R said:

SYS is dumb.

HavoX said:

...and a prick, to boot

This turned from a simple request to flaming a user pretty quickly

If anything, they should probably just remove the moderator buttons from non-moderators screens, I am tired of having my phone tell me that I am not a moderator when I am simply trying to scroll.

mrthejoshmon said:

If anything, they should probably just remove the moderator buttons from non-moderators screens, I am tired of having my phone tell me that I am not a moderator when I am simply trying to scroll.

A daily remider. Move along, citizen.

Dragonfly

Jaxxoon R said:

SYS is dumb.

HavoX said:

...and a prick, to boot

Drop the personal insults please gentlemen.

dew said:

A daily remider. Move along, citizen.

Alright, that made me laugh harder than I should have.

pritch said:

gentlemen.

I find that insulting.

I don't really surf the net on my phone at all, but I do think it's a good idea to update Doomworld to the 21st century. All the change-phobic grandpas around here will probably never let it happen though—Or they'll cry and cry if it does!

I have no issues. I don't plan on visiting Doomworld with my mobilephone as I only really use it for work.. But I don't see any downsides to it either.

Dragonfly said:

How is the S6 by the way? I was considering investing in it in the new year.

It's a nice phone. Unless you want your own thread derailed beyond recognition, drop me a PM and I'll tell you more about it.

CyberDemonEmpress said:

But I don't see any downsides to it either.

BombChel said:

I do think it's a good idea to update Doomworld to the 21st century.

I appreciate your neutral stance and am thankful for the support.

pritch said:

Drop the personal insults please gentlemen.

I shall, and I agree with the sentiment. Hopefully everyone can act more mature, myself included.

I would hope that the said "responsive" mobile site is simple and some other points:

• Go easy on the Javascript/CSS. There is no need for fancy menu animations or alpha blended transitions for pages and such. Doomworld works without Javascript, the mobile site should not require it to function. A browser using 100% CPU because of Javascript or pointless CSS effects makes everything sluggish. Also posting responses and stuff such as changing your settings must not require Javascript.
  
• Do not detect "mobile" based on one's ISP. Some sites check your ISP to determine if you are using say for example 2G/3G to bring you to their standard or mobile site.
  
• Do not enforce new scrolling scrolling dynamics, nothing is more fun than watching a web page scroll pixel by pixel even if it really is fast. I personally expect that when I scroll that it scrolls down the same amount of lines instantly every single time.
  
• Ability to disable potentially wasteful embedded videos and images.
  
• Works in Palm OS 5's Blazer Web Browser, nothing better than a browser from 2004.
  
• Make it work in w3m, lynx, and dillo also.
  
• Allow escaping to/from desktop/mobile mode.
  
• Require LESS bandwidth than it does for the desktop site. Faster load times on dial-up!
  

One major trend that I am seeing today is that browsers get slower and slower with every single release. I suppose a more powerful CPU helps one become more lazy and wasteful.

All these comments on CSS and JS have me wondering if people are still commonly using PCs and phones built in 2002. JS only seems to be slow when lots of cross-domain stuff happens or the programmer involved finds a way to do something very wrong.

I don't think I've ever seen a site suffer performance issues from CSS. Slow animations are annoying, but that's a design issue.

GhostlyDeath said:

• Bullet points
  

Responses to your points, in order:

• I personally intend to use no javascript. CSS would be the only thing used to format and detect the screen size. This will be done with media queries.
  
• Because no javascript is used, this will not be an issue.
  
• Such as smooth scrolling etc? Again, javascript powered bloat that I wouldn't introduce on a forum.
  
• This point I think delves a little deeper than what the CSS would do. With CSS I could hide them but not prevent their loading. This would require either javascript or some modification to the core forum theme.
  
• I must ask: Is this what you're using? I've not heard of this device and being 11 years old it's 'old hat' by technology standards. That said, because of its age and the fact you've specfified what I imagine to be an equally dated browser, it wouldn't understand a media query and therefore should display Doomworld as it does currently. If you own this device, it may be worth having you around to test and see if it works. If not, we can look to make a solution.
  
• This sounds like an intentionally difficult request to me.
  
• This would be a feature I personally think should be available within the user preferences on the User CP.
  
• Less bandwidth, that is possible with a couple of solutions - 1. Enabling 'lower quality images' within your mobile browser. 2. Using whatever method necassary, provide the user with no videos, less images etc. Dial up is a thing of the past and anybody still having to use such methods to access the internet I feel sorry for. (Although they get to heat the source of 90's Dubstep everytime they connect)
  

GhostlyDeath said:

One major trend that I am seeing today is that browsers get slower and slower with every single release. I suppose a more powerful CPU helps one become more lazy and wasteful.

I can't control the speed/slowness of the browser itself. I do agree that the more powerful CPU's of today mean people can get away with laziness in terms of efficiency when developing software.

What I can do is... (read after the following quote:)

Aliotroph? said:

All these comments on CSS and JS have me wondering if people are still commonly using PCs and phones built in 2002. JS only seems to be slow when lots of cross-domain stuff happens or the programmer involved finds a way to do something very wrong.

...ensure I don't use 'additional design features' such as CSS3 animations, or any graphically heavy features such as opacity filters.

Aliotroph? said:

I don't think I've ever seen a site suffer performance issues from CSS. Slow animations are annoying, but that's a design issue.

I certainly have, but that is from what I covered above - extreme overuse of CSS3 animations. Check this out to see what's becoming possible with CSS3, and see if it makes your computer chug at all. Mine's fine, but I've heard from others it's laggy beyond use.

I voted the middle option, since sometime i use my cellphone to browse doomworld but i never had any particular problem... Of course some post are gigantinc and some are superdupertiny (links included), but it isn't that bad. Of course if you want to tackle it, why not?