Dave Winer's Blog

Forrester analyst Vidya Lakshmipathy claims that the iPhone's approach to the web eliminates the need for "stripped down sites crammed onto the small screens of devices meant for phoning, not browsing."

I would love to agree, but I came to the opposite conclusion.

7/25/07: "I think what Apple has attempted is noble, but it's not going to work. The screens have limited resolution, and even if they didn't, even if they could cram a billion pixels into every square inch, there's the limit of how much detail our eyes can see and how big our hands are."

I'm glad to have the opportunity to elaborate.

The iPhone view of the web is not optimal for the user. Given a choice between a site well-designed for mobile use, and the extra work you have to do to zoom in and out and scroll in all directions to read a page laid out for a big screen on a tiny one, there's no choice at all, I'll go with the one designed for mobile use.

To prove the point, compare the user experience, on an iPhone, of the default NY Times site (as demo'd in the commercial), and the river version. No doubt which one is easier for the user, and isn't that what counts? (To me as a user, of course it is.)

Now if Forrester had said that many sites aren't available in mobile versions, or the mobile versions often aren't any easier than the larger versions, or the problem of where they link to hasn't been soved, or that there are tradeoffs, of course, as a user and an engineer, I'd have to agree. But a special mobile web will be needed as long as we want to use devices the size of an iPhone.

continued...