Website Design for Tablets and Mobile

By | | Programming

Recently I went through a redesign, and as part of the effort, I reviewed how best to support tablets and mobile visitors. If you haven’t been researching this topic recently, no one could blame you for dismissing mobile/tablets as a novelty that won’t have much impact on your web presence. But if that’s where you’re at, consider this:

It was recently estimated (as of early 2012), that 10% of all Internet traffic is now coming from mobile devices and mobile traffic will be as high as 36% by 2016. And compared to this time last year, mobile traffic is up 131% … in a single year. We are clearly in a secular trend toward personal mobility in computing. Proliferation of mobile devices now is accelerating and sales of internet enabled mobile and tablet devices now exceeds that of traditional desktop devices; tablets alone will exceed desktop sales as early as next year!

So there is a compelling need to support mobile and tablet users with any new web design moving forward. But how do you do that? First let’s talk about our objectives and we can look at a couple possible strategies from there:

Objectives:

Consider the use pattern of these devices. When using a desktop computer, they’re typically at the office and either researching work-related information, or procrastinating between projects (yes, ahem, at work). Tablet users meanwhile are typically sitting on the couch in front of the television during evenings and weekends. Mobile users meanwhile are trying to squeeze in activity while waiting in the doctors office or at a red light in their car (sad to say).

So what is going to be a meaningful and satisfying user experience for these three users? The desktop and tablet users are going to be more receptive to alternative suggestions for content (upsell eCommerce and related posts links, etc). Tablet users will enjoy media and rich images more. And all of this rich user experience is actually an impediment for mobile users who are fighting against time constraints, a small screen, and slow load times. They just want to get to the critical information such as contact information as quickly as possible. So sticking with the traditional web design only, which is geared for the desktop user, is not going to well represent the other two new classes of users (table & mobile) that you need to start thinking about.

To facilitate these new users, there are a few options:

Native Application:

The first thing that comes to most people’s minds with mobile content, are the native applications for iOS and Android that you download and install on your mobile and tablet devices. These provide very rich user experiences but require that you develop a separate application for each device that you want to support. That can get expensive. And let’s be honest, how many websites are users going to want to take the effort to download an app for? So does all that extra expense justify developing for a use case that users likely won’t even engage? There are exceptions to this rule of course. If you’re a gaming company or you are a cloud software application that provides a productivity tool that the user will need to access on a regular basis, then a native app is certainly a possibility and probably even a superior user experience. For the majority for corporate and marketing websites though, this just isn’t a reasonable option, since a user is merely looking for some quick information about your site.

Separate Mobile Design:

The next reasonable consideration is creating a separate website to support tablets and mobile phones. This is relatively easy to accomplish. It is relatively straightforward to detect the device type (e.g. HTTPUserAgent) and redirect users to alternative content accordingly. If you use your phone to browse web content frequently, you’ve likely come across a few sites that will redirect you to a separate subdomain of their website. xyz.com for example might redirect you to m.xyz.com. And there you serve the simplified version of the website that better applies to mobile devices. But this gets complicated when you begin to consider all the various permutations. What about tablets for example that actually benefit from richer user experience?

Responsive Web Design:

There is a quiet movement in the design community that began with an article by Ethan Marcotte, describing the possibility of Responsive Web Design (RWD). The idea provides a technical framework for implementing a “mobile first” web design, in which you start by designing the constrained mobile experience and layer on the richer user experience based on capability from there. By working backwards, you ensure you’ve accounted for all the various permutations such as all the different screen sizes (media ports), landscape versus portrait layout, etc.

Responsive Web design is possible primarily because of the introduction of media queries with the new stylesheets standard in CSS3. Media queries enable the website author to encapsulate CSS classes within conditional statements that evaluate the media type of the user such as window size (viewport) and orientation. RWD also addresses use of flexible design grids and context-aware images that adapt the size and quality of the image also based upon device type.

A Hybrid Approach:

After evaluating these different options, I ultimately concluded a hybrid approach was in order. The philosophy of responsive web design is elegant, I naturally gravitate to it, and it worked wonders for optimizing the desktop version of the website for tablet devices. At the end of the day though, I did not feel it was appropriate for mobile devices. As mentioned earlier in this post, mobile users have fundamentally different goals and needs, and are simply not looking for a more elegant representation of my website; they want to get the information and get it quiclkly, period. I think about my mobile experiences and when I look up a business online, its typically because I just want to find their address or contact information. Thus, there is a lot of information on the primary website that does not belong there for the mobile version, and it really should be treated separately.

An Example:

If you check out Enlogica.com on your smart phone, you’ll see that there are only 5 pages and the first is the contact link. If you click on this, it is a very simple page with the address and three buttons that allow the user to: click to call, click to email, and click to get directions on their phone. That’s it. There are a few other pages below that for the sake of completeness (the blog section is accessible at the bottom), but I’m really trying to create a simplified user experience, based upon the assumed use pattern of the user. And this is fundamentally a different prerogative than Responsive web design, which is focused on adaptive aesthetics, not user experience.

Because I’m using WordPress as the CMS framework for the site, I was able to easily setup a secondary mobile template that is only delivered to mobile devices, based upon the device type (HTTPuserAgent). This provided an elegant solution, since I was able to and optimize the content for mobile devices without having to create a separate mobile site to maintain.

In summary, I determined a hybrid approach to mobile accessibility that married the benefits of responsive web design with the practicality of a separately mobile theme was preferable. Responsive (RWD) techniques were used to adapt to a reasonable tablet experience, but mobile devices receive a separate theme, with limited navigation, and the content of those pages is also minimized. The mobile experience is greatly simplified and models the native device interface (using JQuery Mobile). This approach provides an optimal user experience on all three device classes (desktop, table, and mobile).

Learn Responsive Web Design

Join Learnable $29 Includes all SitePoint books

Neal Cabage

Neal Cabage is the Managing Director of Enlogica, a digital agency focused on the development of web and mobile applications, analytics-driven insights and optimization.

More Posts

{ 14 comments }

itmitică May 29, 2012 at 9:33 am

Hi Neal,

I appreciate the effort and the time you’ve put in this project.

The good: I like the design, there are some issues with the social media icons on :hover, you can’t get back to the previous one due to the extension effect and with the menu, you can’t really use it on smaller screen sizes if you have JS disabled.

The “bad”: I don’t see why your site would need a mobile variant, content wise. It’s lightweight enough. I’ve tried it on my smartphones and it really feels dull and it’s like hitting a wall with every AJAX request for every tap on the same page.

The worse: There’s a new article about legislation regarding cookies. Your site should have a link for mobile users, leading them to the full site. If a European mobile user chooses to view the full site on mobile, how are you going to store this option?

The catastrophe: serving a mobile user a different content looks/opens the door for hijack attempts/defacing. It may also lead to official discrimination complaints users. These are more serious than you’d like to believe!

Neal May 29, 2012 at 4:45 pm

Yes I intentionally suppressed the social buttons on smaller screen sizes. They’re nice to have but let’s be honest – they’re not part of the critical path of the user experience, and when dealing with small real estate, something had to go! :)

The dull feeling waiting for the AJAX to load would not have been solved by using responsive web design. At least I show a loading icon. And in fact, I’ve pre-loaded several of the subsections to ensure instant loading (about section). Again an optimization not possible with simple RWD only. As for it being possible to highly the contact information using RWD, yes technically, though it would have meant a redistribution of my information architecture to do so. Again, its a cost/benefit balance that I felt favored going with a separate UX for mobile.

Regarding cookie legislation – yes I heard about that (European) law. Fortunately we are not subject to that law here in the States. Talk about bad user experience! ;-)

Sorry, I don’t really follow the catastophe concerns. Definitely don’t see it as a discrimination issue, as I know nothing about the user other than their device type and treat them all the same.

itmitică May 31, 2012 at 6:23 am

It’s a little hard for them to appreciate your mobile web site when their smartphone display size goes over 480px.

Also, jQuery mobile websites are confusing the user as they looks like a skin for the smartphone settings UI or the live menu for setting with their carrier.

Jesse - Divine Designs May 28, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Good article Neal. I think you’ve nailed it on the head for the most part. I think however that the approach to take also depends on the target audience and how much you know about them. The approach could be different in different scenarios based on what we know about the majority of people viewing the website.

Clayton May 28, 2012 at 11:37 am

Hi Neal,
Nice article. Many thanks. I have recently gone through a similar experience with a site at work and was considering the same options. In the end I went for a purely responsive design, rather than a hybrid because I felt in the long run, to future proof the site, where mobile usage is only going to increase and possibly dominate, I would be burying my head in the sand somewhat by stripping out the site for mobile users.
I know many users who hate being faced with a limited site on mobile and should at least be given the option to view the entire site as some people now use mobile devices as their primary access point to the net.
I agree that the mobile experience is very different and requires a different approach but It will save work in the long run not to limit the mobile experience.
Many thanks.
Clayton.

Neal May 28, 2012 at 8:04 pm

Thanks John. You make a reasonable point about making all content accessible to every user, regardless of their device. I’ll have to consider that a little more.

I worry about obscuring the critical path for the sake of inclusion on too much content, with the mobile device though. I have both read and personally observed numerous times, that the *typical* mobile user is lower in the conversion funnel, meaning they’re looking for your phone number or directions to your office, not looking to read a mission statement or prospectus. So why obscure that critical path for them? I’m taking cues from landing page optimization with this perspective. We know that fewer choices and faster load times result increased engagement and this more conversions, for this lower funnel traffic.

At a technical level, I was concerned about the maintainability of the code. Applying media queries to adapt for the tablet was relatively clean and easy. My original intention was to implement RWD for mobile too but the number of conditional exceptions required to adapt for mobile felt excessive. With so many conditional definitions of the same CSS class, I was losing confidence that another developer would come in and quickly/easily understand the code. So I guess you could say this was concerned about future-proofing my work in a different regard.

John Tabita May 28, 2012 at 9:29 am

Good information, Neal. We’ve been researching this very issue to determine the best way to create mobile versions of our customers’ websites.

Personally, I prefer the desktop website on my iPad, not a mobile website. But when I’m checking out SitePoint on my mobile phone while sitting at a red light ;) and find I have to readjust my screen, I have to really want to read the article to bother.

You said you don’t feel responsive design is appropriate for smartphones. From what I understand, all that’s required is some CSS and JS to reformat an existing site for a mobile screen. Am I missing something?

Neal May 28, 2012 at 4:01 pm

Hi John – You are correct that a bit of CSS3 and JavaScript is what’s behind the magic of a responsive web layout. Media queries specifically enable a developer to specify that some content be presented (or not) depending on the site of the screen. And that works wonderfully for adapting a desktop user experience to a tablet, in my experience.

The phone is so much smaller however, slower internet speeds, and people are using it in a different context. Heavy graphics load slowly. Verbose content be difficult to read, complex forms are tough to fill out with the miniature iPhone keyboard, etc.

At a technical level RWD is sufficient to adapt to a mobile screen. My argument is rather that the *content* might not be appropriate for a mobile device. If its going to load slow due to heavy images etc, contain a lot of social media widgets that don’t format well and suck up precious real estate, contain a lot of text that requires a lot of scrolling, and forms that are difficult to fill out (rather than emphasizing a one-click phone number for example), then it will pose challenges for the reader visitor.

Chris May 28, 2012 at 9:17 am

‘But I’m really trying to create a simplified user experience, based upon the assumed use pattern of the user.’

Assumed pattern of use? Key word from this sentence – assumed. How does that well known saying go … assumption is the mother of all…

People do want to shop on mobile. People do want to pay bills on mobile. People do want to read articles. People do want to browser your site. People do want to do complex tasks. This assumption is in short nonsense.

‘And this is fundamentally a different prerogative than Responsive web design, which is focused on adaptive aesthetics, not user experience.’

Err… Responsive web design IS all about user experience!

Neal May 28, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Sounds like you’re making some pretty big assumptions in your counter-argument! ;-)

Chris May 29, 2012 at 1:58 am

Perhaps I am. Whilst you draw from your personal experiences often just wanting contact details when using your mobile, I often use mine on a train researching technical web development, and then may do a little shopping whilst watching TV – which is a very different browsing pattern from what you describe. Perhaps my browsing habits are unusual – but given most people on the train are also looking at there phones, and mobile eCommerce is booming perhaps not.

But lets for a moment not make any assumptions about what people want. Which way would it be better to error? Stripped down content optimized for mobile OR all the content optimized for mobile?

Whilst you argue it isn’t possible to optimize all content for mobile, your own site works well at mobile width (apart from the right sidebar being hidden – and this could be nicely styled). I quite like your menu system.

Regarding a few specific optimizations you talk of –

Contact Information – I’d agree that this should be prominent on a mobile site, but this can easily be achieved with RWD – on your site you could place a link to right of your menu button, instead of the contact link being hidden in the menu drop down.

Page speed – you can of course optimize with RWD, but ignoring this, shouldn’t it all be optimized for mobile connection speeds anyway? Do people use your site whilst on a train, using their phone connection for internet? Or using wifi in a cafe, which is often no faster than mobile speed?

You didn’t respond to my argument about RWD being about user experience though. You write it’s focus is on aesthetics, which is simply incorrect. Whilst many RWD examples demonstrate improvements in aesthetics, the real key point is adapting the user experience for the device.

Neal May 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm

Chris,

Rather that get into a battle over our anecdotal experiences, I was curious to see what Jacob Neilsen, the father of usability had to say about it. Interestingly, he also just released an article that specifically addresses this topic of responsive web design for mobile devices. Here is the quote and the link (hope it comes through):

“When considering mobile phones vs. desktop computers, the platform differences are great enough that the benefits of creating two separate designs are substantial. Furthermore, both platforms have many wealthy users, so the profits from maximizing conversion rates can be considerable. ”
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/repurposing.html

itmitică May 31, 2012 at 6:27 am

Jacob Neilsen, the father of usability, has a web site that’s not accounting for its users, mobile, tablet or otherwise. To me, his talk carries no weight since he doesn’t walk the walk also.

Chris June 1, 2012 at 1:29 am

Jacob Neilsen, maybe the father of usability, and whilst in the 90s he may have been pushing the field forward, but today he is no longer relevant.

If you look over his site you’ll notice there are no links to other peoples work. None. Also in a recent article he wrote about desktop / mobile design with out reference to Responsive Design. This leads me to conclude he doesn’t read other people’s work, and without a wider understanding of the field it is impossible for him to be relevant, and help push thinking forward.

The article you refer to has been widely criticized across the entire internet, include an article on sitepoint – http://www.sitepoint.com/jakob-nielsen-repurposing-vs-optimized-design-feedback/#fbid=oAdzMnUWSBR

I don’t think this article directly address our ‘battle over our anecdotal experiences’ about mobile patterns of use. Regarding my ‘assumptions’ about patterns of use –

‘For each user who is in a hurry there will be another who stares intently at their device for 20-30 minute stints.’
http://stephanierieger.com/mobile-users-dont-do-that/

More and more people are shopping on mobile -
http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/solutions/advertising/article.php/3939501/Mobile-Commerce-Research-for-Online-Retailers.htm

Comments on this entry are closed.