[NOW IMPLEMENTED!] View Mobile Version On Desktop System?

[D. V. Devnull]

An off-topic side note...

Tbf no-one's been heated or cold towards you.

Just because people disagree and post their reasoning for doing so does not constitute a personal attack or being heated. Even if there's some back and forth debate in quotes it's still all been perfectly friendly.

But to be honest Devnull I think you are taking some things to serious and make big things out of small problems (doesn't mean that they are not a problem) which could lead to people being irritated at the style you post, which may be the cause of you thinking they are acting cold.

To both of you, what I'm primarily referencing as "being cold" is people telling me to use a FireFox extension that could potentially render me flat unable to use FireFox, and/or destroy my profile data. That kind of solution is basically an attempt to shove a positive forum/site suggestion -- created for everyone -- under the rug and get rid of the person who suggested it. I don't think you would take so well to someone trying that on you either, right? :(

 

~D. V. "Somebody trying to get rid of me? Yeah, that's being cold... depressingly cold." Devnull

 

 

 

(p.s.: Let's get back to sticking to the topic now, alright? I do try to avoid taking everything as a personal attack... sheesh!)

[Randox]

I feel like everyone missed a point (or maybe I got this flat out wrong, and please correct me if I did).

 

I can see why we wouldn't do this on the grounds of accommodating outdated computers. That's how you hold up progress. Duvnull, it sounds like your computer is a prehistoric dinosaur, and I'm sure you would replace it if you could. In the mean time, the rest of the world isn't going to bend over backwards (because this does increase other peoples workload) to accommodate people in your situation, but I think you (can) understand that.

 

The proposal was for more than accommodating computers that are at their limit when running RuneScape though, and this is where maybe I am just making shit up. I would expect that a mobile version of the site would accommodate being shrunk from side to side a bit better than the main site, as in it can reformat itself to some degree to avoid creating a horizontal scroll bar, even if it is kept quite narrow. This would be useful for people to look things up on the main site while actually playing the game, especially for people with better computers who are running the game in realizable mode, which will consume all the space you can give it.

 

So no, I wouldn't support this on the grounds of making it easier on computers. I'm sorry, but there is no logical end to how accommodating you make yourself, because there are people still running computers that are less powerful than a smart phone on 56k modems. If we tried to support everyone, then we all might as well never buy another new computer again because there will always be someone running a computer like that. At some point, sites have to say enough is enough, and choose a break off point.

 

But there is a second feature here (I think), which is the ease of use while gaming thing, and I think that might be worth some consideration if the crewbies feel that it either would be user friendly enough, or would be worth the time to make it that way. I don't see why making sure the site is supported would be an issue, since I imagine you guys would already be making sure that the site works, so that people can use it on their phones. But perhaps there are some potential hiccups that might arise from PC's running a site meant for a mobile browser that I am unaware of.

 

My point is, it would be nice to see someone try to respond to his entire proposal, rather than the first part.

[lordkafei]

^ You still posted all sites that have very limited content on most pages.

Social sites, news sites and info sites are all pretty much just text content with maybe 1 image that is easily re-streamed into a compact mobile form, as seen on the mobile formats.

So as a comeback you kinda failed to prove anything tbh.

 

You are missing my point, which has nothing at all to do with the complexity of any of the sites:

 

None of these content providers block out desktop browsers.

[Sy_Accursed]

^ You still posted all sites that have very limited content on most pages.

Social sites, news sites and info sites are all pretty much just text content with maybe 1 image that is easily re-streamed into a compact mobile form, as seen on the mobile formats.

So as a comeback you kinda failed to prove anything tbh.

 

You are missing my point, which has nothing at all to do with the complexity of any of the sites:

 

None of these content providers block out desktop browsers.

 

No I'm not.

The reply you quoted was pointing out all the sites you listed were simple sites that are easily condensed in mobile format without becoming confusing; where as tip.it has complex pages that can't be simplified so.

You're 'comeback' did nothing to counteract this point as all the sites were still simple ones easily condensed.

 

I was just pointing out your failure to actually provide a decent example against the the point you were quoting, presumably to disprove.

[Sy_Accursed]

An off-topic side note...

Tbf no-one's been heated or cold towards you.

Just because people disagree and post their reasoning for doing so does not constitute a personal attack or being heated. Even if there's some back and forth debate in quotes it's still all been perfectly friendly.

But to be honest Devnull I think you are taking some things to serious and make big things out of small problems (doesn't mean that they are not a problem) which could lead to people being irritated at the style you post, which may be the cause of you thinking they are acting cold.

To both of you, what I'm primarily referencing as "being cold" is people telling me to use a FireFox extension that could potentially render me flat unable to use FireFox, and/or destroy my profile data. That kind of solution is basically an attempt to shove a positive forum/site suggestion -- created for everyone -- under the rug and get rid of the person who suggested it. I don't think you would take so well to someone trying that on you either, right? :(

 

~D. V. "Somebody trying to get rid of me? Yeah, that's being cold... depressingly cold." Devnull

 

 

 

(p.s.: Let's get back to sticking to the topic now, alright? I do try to avoid taking everything as a personal attack... sheesh!)

 

But there's absolutely no reason it could damage your firefox profile, that's total nonsense.

There's perfectly decent add ons to send out a mobile signature from firefox that don't some how magically cause firefox to implode as you suggest.

There is just no logic behind that point.

 

And it was hardly trying to "get rid of you" it was pointing out an simple and effective solution to viewing the mobile site on a desktop, until such a time (if ever) the admins decide to allow it to be viewed.

[lordkafei]

^ You still posted all sites that have very limited content on most pages.

Social sites, news sites and info sites are all pretty much just text content with maybe 1 image that is easily re-streamed into a compact mobile form, as seen on the mobile formats.

So as a comeback you kinda failed to prove anything tbh.

 

You are missing my point, which has nothing at all to do with the complexity of any of the sites:

 

None of these content providers block out desktop browsers.

 

No I'm not.

 

Yes you are, and you are still too stubborn to admit it.

 

Once again, just for you:

 

None of these content providers block out desktop browsers.

 

Regardless of your obfustactions and ramblings to the contrary, this was my point.

 

Get a freaking clue.

[tripsis]

Guys can we drop this please :wall:

[D. V. Devnull]

I feel like everyone missed a point (or maybe I got this flat out wrong, and please correct me if I did).

 

<<<snip>>>

 

The proposal was for more than accommodating computers that are at their limit when running RuneScape though, and this is where maybe I am just making shit up. I would expect that a mobile version of the site would accommodate being shrunk from side to side a bit better than the main site, as in it can reformat itself to some degree to avoid creating a horizontal scroll bar, even if it is kept quite narrow. This would be useful for people to look things up on the main site while actually playing the game, especially for people with better computers who are running the game in realizable mode, which will consume all the space you can give it.

 

<<<snip>>>

 

But there is a second feature here (I think), which is the ease of use while gaming thing, and I think that might be worth some consideration if the crewbies feel that it either would be user friendly enough, or would be worth the time to make it that way. I don't see why making sure the site is supported would be an issue, since I imagine you guys would already be making sure that the site works, so that people can use it on their phones. But perhaps there are some potential hiccups that might arise from PC's running a site meant for a mobile browser that I am unaware of.

 

My point is, it would be nice to see someone try to respond to his entire proposal, rather than the first part.

Hi there, Randox... I was a bit on overload when I typed what will now be my 3rd most recent post (and my family just overloaded me again while I was typing this one, so I may have forgotten something once again), which caused me to lose track of what I was saying, resulting in my finishing that post before all my thoughts properly reached that post. :wall:

 

Anywho, per my earlier posts at Post 5 5132359[/snapback], Post 8 5132707[/snapback], and Post 13 5134208[/snapback] of this thread, I had also intended that this helped people who have RS running already and need a lack of additional load on their CPU. You are definitely not "just making shit up", as you put it, because in reflecting back, I found part of my own thoughts that I had temporarily forgotten. I still fully intend that anyone who is actively playing RS would be able to pull up Tip.It's new mobile version (in beta, atm) on the side, next to the already running RS Game Java Applet, and I fully apologize for making you think else of my own personal thoughts in regard to that. :(

 

Heck, I just realized that if we do get to have the mobile version on desktops, we could use a bookmark with "Load in SideBar" checked to make it come up on the side of the RS Java Game Applet. It would come up next to the game where the bookmarks/history does. In short, and in true realization, the real side effect would be older desktops being able to view something that's not CPU-heavy, and the real main effect would be the ability to have something alongside the RS game. I will consider myself glad to have a fellow community member like you, Randox, who can give my mind a jump-start when it's been knocked off-track. :shades:

 

~Mr. D. V. "Still on-board with the 'alongside the RS game' ideal... Thanks waking my brain up, Randox!" Devnull

[Beaumonde]

Just going back to what I said in my original post (about the User Agent Switcher addon). You've said above that you believe it will make FireFox "unstable", which is blatantly not true.

 

Heck, I just realized that if we do get to have the mobile version on desktops, we could use a bookmark with "Load in SideBar" checked to make it come up on the side of the RS Java Game Applet. It would come up next to the game where the bookmarks/history does.

 

But from this it sounds like you're using an outdated version of FireFox, because loading bookmarks/history in the sidebar is no longer the default action (it's an overlay now).

 

Is that the case?

[D. V. Devnull]

Just going back to what I said in my original post (about the User Agent Switcher addon). You've said above that you believe it will make FireFox "unstable", which is blatantly not true.

Wrong, because first off, you took out the word "potentially" and removed it from your take on my observations, which happened to notice "potentially unstable" aspects of that extension. Second, go to Chris Pederick's User Agent Switcher Help Page and look at the first item under "Install" and the second question under "FAQ" there. FF Extensions that have possible issues like these upon launch/shutdown/install/uninstall never get installed by me because I keep my profile stable. I have some rather nasty criteria when picking out extensions, and if they don't pass that, they don't get near my FF profile. 'Nuff said on that. <_<

 

 

As for this...

Heck, I just realized that if we do get to have the mobile version on desktops, we could use a bookmark with "Load in SideBar" checked to make it come up on the side of the RS Java Game Applet. It would come up next to the game where the bookmarks/history does.

But from this it sounds like you're using an outdated version of FireFox, because loading bookmarks/history in the sidebar is no longer the default action (it's an overlay now).

 

Is that the case?

Running an FF 3.5.x-series browser here. A bit antiquated, but stable and within the minimum specs required for even the new site's beta version. I might slide up to FF 3.6.x-series, but that will only be if I can confirm all the extensions both I and my family use will make it over the barrier. :geek:

 

On the other half of the matter, here's another spot where you're wrong, because I did some considerable research on Mozilla's Support Site last night while I was away from Tip.It. During that research, I found out that the sidebars are still possible to be called in the same ways as they always have been since FF 3.0.x-series, via keyboard shortcut, view menu, and toolbar button. Those are the methods I generally use, so it normally doesn't open as an overlay (or as a window, in the version I use) for me. The overlays/windows are called via the bookmarks/history menus, but I don't use those unless I have to get really deep, as the sidebars do what I ask very perfectly. Further, I just ran another stack of research as I composed this post, and found that "Load in Sidebar" is still possible on bookmarks even in later FireFox versions. In short, the intended functionality and methods have not disappeared. :shades:

 

 

~D. V. "Looks like I haven't fallen through a dimensional warp..." Devnull

 

 

 

(p.s.: Thanks for the Forum Burnout... Now to go relax my brain... ugh...)

[GrandZephyr]

My thoughts are below, but I think this is all going to end up needing the input of a specific individual, as described in tripsis' post.

... In any case, the final decision will probably be left up to Peter :P

 

Please don't be mad at me for posting tripsis :unsure:

Guys can we drop this please :wall:

 

My thoughts

I believe Randox summed it up pretty well.

 

Although, I don't agree with the motive of making mobile available for desktop users because of their limited system specifics such as CPU/Memory, I support having a slimmer version.

Specifically, I like the idea for the purpose of increasing usability when considering a situation like side-by-side windows of Tip.it guide and Runescape game.

 

I believe I read a post from someone who brought up the consideration of work needed for "official" support to handle difficulties that may arise, if the intention is to make the mobile version also work as a slim version for desktop users.

 

This idea definitely has people thinking.

 

Thanks for the idea Devnull! :thumbup:

 

 

Tid-bit supporting the increase of usability

...

The proposal was for more than accommodating computers that are at their limit when running RuneScape though, and this is where maybe I am just making shit up. I would expect that a mobile version of the site would accommodate being shrunk from side to side a bit better than the main site, as in it can reformat itself to some degree to avoid creating a horizontal scroll bar, even if it is kept quite narrow. This would be useful for people to look things up on the main site while actually playing the game, especially for people with better computers who are running the game in realizable mode, which will consume all the space you can give it.

...

 

But there is a second feature here (I think), which is the ease of use while gaming thing, and I think that might be worth some consideration if the crewbies feel that it either would be user friendly enough, or would be worth the time to make it that way. I don't see why making sure the site is supported would be an issue, since I imagine you guys would already be making sure that the site works, so that people can use it on their phones. But perhaps there are some potential hiccups that might arise from PC's running a site meant for a mobile browser that I am unaware of.

...

 

Tid-bit against motive

...

I can see why we wouldn't do this on the grounds of accommodating outdated computers. That's how you hold up progress. [Devnull], it sounds like your computer is a prehistoric dinosaur, and I'm sure you would replace it if you could. In the mean time, the rest of the world isn't going to bend over backwards (because this does increase other peoples workload) to accommodate people in your situation, but I think you (can) understand that.

 

...

So no, I wouldn't support this on the grounds of making it easier on computers. I'm sorry, but there is no logical end to how accommodating you make yourself, because there are people still running computers that are less powerful than a smart phone on 56k modems. If we tried to support everyone, then we all might as well never buy another new computer again because there will always be someone running a computer like that. At some point, sites have to say enough is enough, and choose a break off point.

 

...

[MageUK]

There's actually a good logistical reason we do this.

 

All of the sites you've listed as having accessible mobile sites, you'll notice they all have a separate URL or "directory" for their mobile site, through which only the mobile site is accessed. Currently, it's unfeasible due to stuff going on in our code backend for us to do this. We currently serve mobile pages through exactly the same URLs as our desktop pages, and that is the crux of the matter. If we allow anyone to switch to mobile mode with a link on each page, then search engines may switch to mobile mode and start indexing what may potentially be truncated information for the mobile site and "overwriting" the data they already have for that URL, because the URLs are the same. By only serving the mobile pages to mobile user agents, we can be sure that no indexing will occur on these pages. However, that's not to say it won't change in the future if I can find a suitable workaround for the problem.

[lordkafei]

There's actually a good logistical reason we do this.

 

All of the sites you've listed as having accessible mobile sites, you'll notice they all have a separate URL or "directory" for their mobile site, through which only the mobile site is accessed. Currently, it's unfeasible due to stuff going on in our code backend for us to do this. We currently serve mobile pages through exactly the same URLs as our desktop pages, and that is the crux of the matter. If we allow anyone to switch to mobile mode with a link on each page, then search engines may switch to mobile mode and start indexing what may potentially be truncated information for the mobile site and "overwriting" the data they already have for that URL, because the URLs are the same. By only serving the mobile pages to mobile user agents, we can be sure that no indexing will occur on these pages. However, that's not to say it won't change in the future if I can find a suitable workaround for the problem.

 

Well, Google will be spoofing you too: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/12/introducing-smartphone-googlebot-mobile.html

 

So despite your claims to the contrary, Google could be accessing your mobile pages. And if the URLs are the same, that would be problematic.

 

If you don’t serve the mobile version to Googlebot-Mobile, aren’t you going to be considered as cloaking? (http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2011/11/03/matt-cutts-cloaking-web-content-optimization-wco/)

[GrandZephyr]

There's actually a good logistical reason we do this.

... We currently serve mobile pages through exactly the same URLs as our desktop pages, and that is the crux of the matter.

... However, that's not to say it won't change in the future if I can find a suitable workaround for the problem.

 

Ok, sounds like there are a few reasons not to make mobile available on desktop, yet.

 

Although, it's good to hear that it may be considered in the future.

 

 

I'm not sure what backend code issue(s) you will run into, other then absolute urls for example.

 

Not sure if these ideas have been considered as workarounds, and I understand there are reasons they may not be possible.

 

1) .htaccess rewrites to spoof /mobile/ folder to the root folder and have that checked at the same time you check the useragent to determine if they need mobile site

 

2) using a mobile.tip.it/ subdomain and have that checked at the same time you check the useragent to determine if they need mobile site

 

Again, I am sure there are reasons these may not work, but just wanted to throw the idea(s) out there.

[obfuscator]

There's actually a good logistical reason we do this.

... We currently serve mobile pages through exactly the same URLs as our desktop pages, and that is the crux of the matter.

... However, that's not to say it won't change in the future if I can find a suitable workaround for the problem.

 

Ok, sounds like there are a few reasons not to make mobile available on desktop, yet.

 

Although, it's good to hear that it may be considered in the future.

 

 

I'm not sure what backend code issue(s) you will run into, other then absolute urls for example.

 

Not sure if these ideas have been considered as workarounds, and I understand there are reasons they may not be possible.

 

1) .htaccess rewrites to spoof /mobile/ folder to the root folder and have that checked at the same time you check the useragent to determine if they need mobile site

 

2) using a mobile.tip.it/ subdomain and have that checked at the same time you check the useragent to determine if they need mobile site

 

Again, I am sure there are reasons these may not work, but just wanted to throw the idea(s) out there.

 

We're already serving the mobile site based solely on the useragent - which is why so many people suggested to the OP that the best way to access the mobile site from his desktop was to spoof his useragent.

 

Using the subdomain would be ideal, but that's what peter is saying is the difficulty: it may not be possible to properly share the framework we use between multiple sub-domains.

[GrandZephyr]

<<quotes>>

 

We're already serving the mobile site based solely on the useragent - which is why so many people suggested to the OP that the best way to access the mobile site from his desktop was to spoof his useragent.

 

Using the subdomain would be ideal, but that's what peter is saying is the difficulty: it may not be possible to properly share the framework we use between multiple sub-domains.

Thanks for the input obfuscator. :thumbsup:

 

I apologize if my previous post wasn't clear, and it may not have been, I was running on fumes.

 

What I meant with my suggestion was to supplement the user-agent code with a way to flag the content as mobile vs. desktop based on if the requested hostname was mobile.tip.it or path was /mobile/.

 

Without knowing the specific complications associated with the framework, I can't offer a 100% solution. One easily guessed complication is the URLs for links either being absolute "h**p://open.tip.it/path/to/file" or relative to the root "/path/to/file". Either of those will easily break the two suggestions I offered.

 

My previous post was a shot in the dark, and I actually hope I didn't offend anyone with it.

 

Once again, I appreciate everyone's input. If I think of something else to contribute I'll post.

 

Cheers! :thumbsup:

[MageUK]

This suggestion has now been implemented. ^^

 

It may take a while for DNS to propagate but it should be in place now for the vast majority.

 

Please note that not all URLs are supported on the mobile site yet, especially pages and calculators. Until they officially appear on http://m.tip.it (as in you can go to http://m.tip.it and navigate there through the mobile site, not just clicking mobile from the desktop site) they are not officially supported.

[obfuscator]

Excellent. Great job finding a workaround Peter :thumbup:

[GrandZephyr]

Excellent. Great job finding a workaround Peter :thumbup:

Agreed, good job!! :thumbsup:

[tripsis]

Thanks Peter <3:

[Mercifull]

Mobile site shows no ads?... might there be an issue with everyone using that and tipit getting no revenue or are ads planned for the mobile site when its out of beta?

[obfuscator]

Mobile site shows no ads?... might there be an issue with everyone using that and tipit getting no revenue or are ads planned for the mobile site when its out of beta?

Interesting thought....

 

I suppose we'd need to see if it's even worth putting ads on given how many people use it (maybe very few?).

[Mercifull]

Mobile site fonts are very small and doesn't let you pinch zoom on android or ios

[D. V. Devnull]

Hi, all... Sorry for the late reply, as I've been unable to have any serious net time for the past few weeks. You know, whole family being home and all that for the holidays... :wall:

 

I'm glad to see this idea got implemented, and my thanks to Peter(MageUK) for doing so! :thumbsup:

 

 

@Mercifull/Obfuscator -- Regarding the ads, I really don't think the mobile version will ever need any. People are still going to have to go through some of the main site pages for the things that F2P can't even properly use to their full extent anymore since the RS HighScores Removal. So if there's ad revenue to be gained, it will happen due to that. :thumbup:

 

@Mercifull -- Regarding Zoom on Android/iOs, don't you get a zoom control in your bottom right corner or something while you're scrolling a page around, which you can click on to adjust your zoom? Or do you perhaps have settings available to you that would let you adjust fonts/zoom that way on your mobile device? :huh:

 

 

@Peter(MageUK) -- On other notes, since I'm guessing you might want a little help finding things to tune up on the mobile version, I'll be around the tracker and another thread or two here soon. See you there! :D

 

 

~Mr. D. V. "I even sense something here might need to go to a thread of its' own?" Devnull

 

 

 

(p.s.: I think I'm gonna go update the thread header to indicate this idea has been implemented... and this post can have something positive attached, IMO.)

 

(p.p.s.: Done! Sorry for the long wait!)

[Mercifull]

Mobile browsing has now hit around 8% of traffic, 50% of which is on iOS devices. It would be interesting to know the percentage for tipit but the admins probably don't want to share that for very valid reasons. This mobile traffic is only going to increase as more and more people get smartphones and tablet devices. Ad revenue on these devices IS going to be important. Do not disregard it just because you THINK people will still want to use a main computer.

 

As for the zooming on iOS and Android. I explicitly mentioned the "pinch to zoom" feature but double tap to zoom doesn't work either. Do you have a mobile device yourself?