Hey Scoopy,
Thanks for the prompt response.
OK, I misunderstood the LukeW reference, apologies. Glad we are both on the same page there!
In response to your comments:
1) Still flawed IMO. My we uses the mobile version of Opera to serve pages to my 1920px TV. I have plenty of screen and bandwidth is not an issue, so I am exteremly annoyed to receive a mobile version. That is just one example.
2) hmmm. Not so sure. jQuery Mobile, for example, is a whopper. Even minified and zipped it weighs in a 24Kb, above your best practice threshold.
3) Simply not true. There are literally millions of devices, many of which provide a persons only access to the internet, that have no .js support. That is why a mobile-first (dumb device first) approach is so important. This is elegantly illustrated here:
http://www.slideshare.net/bryanrieger/r ... b-by-yiibu
I can't agree with your comments about RWD either;
1) I don't beleive that is true. People don't want to experience a different web on a small device, they just want it to be usable. A badly designed page with ill-conceived content is that on any device. One of the upsides to the mobile-first approach is that it forces designers to consider what really is important on a web page. Phone number = Yes, of course. The first thing you will see on one of my sites (at low res) now is a search box.
Unilaterally making decisions about what a user wants, on their behalf is a little arrogant don't you think. I'm the user, I will decide. If I want an app like environment, I'll get the app. If I use the browser, I want the web page, not some watered down version that may have the only part I was interested in removed by the 'mobile UX guru'.
You also have to continue ask yourself what is a 'mobile device'. Is my iPad? Hell no. What about my Wii? Nope.
2) That simply isn't true any more, though it was at one time I agree. Mobile-first straegies deliver only essential resources to less capable devices and then pile on the extras as the viewport increases.
There are currently dozens of strategies for dealing with images responsively, my current favourite being this one
http://adaptive-images.com/ No device detection required.
With reference to my Atmedia template, while you are of course correct I would like to point out that:
a) That was the first responsive template I ever built. I have learned a lot since then.
b) 530Kb of that is images, not the template. I agree that is far from optimal, but nice images sell stuff. The majority of those images are used in the slider, which has a switch to disable it in the template settings, for those wishing to cut back on bandwidth.
A more realistic viewpoint could be gotten from viewing the page weight of my free template here:
http://demo.internet-inspired.com/eleven45/
Even that is pretty heavy to the templates I am building now, since I shifted to a mobile-first approach.
Top-tip: marking your posts as "Urgent!", when they clearly aren't, will most likely get you ignored.
Please don't PM me with anything other than *Personal Messages*! If you have a Joomla question, post it in the forum.
, so content is not so much the outstanding issue.
) when i was able to provide a concise and clean UX that weighed in at all of 18kb.
