Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will webpages besides NY Times look good on iPhone?
- Thread starter Kiki1234
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Somehow, I bet apple.com will be breathtaking (and not in the Seinfeld breathtaking way, either).
It will look exactly the same, they just use the NYTimes website for universal appeal. Everyone reads news...
It's probably because the New York Times is a liberal rag that many wannabe yuppies / trend whores read.
That's quite the generalization. Sorry, pet peeve of mine, unless you were trying to be funny...
We won't really know until the 29th. Supposedly it should look just like real safari, but with zooming. Only time will tell.
Unlike MacRumors...
Oh that was funny... that was really funny. Hahahaha I am still laughing.
Well done, I believe that is called owned, or in the online world, "pnwed".*sigh* Even though the NY Times truly is a rag. A dirty, guilty rag. Calling it liberal is a copout and and skews the responsibility it has for reporting the truth about its own city. Sad.
they do it simply because everybody knows about NYT. When people see the NYT on iPhone, they'll realize the capability (internet wise) of the iPhone. If they put some random site, like XYZ'sblog.com, it wouldn't be recognized. They could have very well put CNN, but usually the photographs on CNNs page have a lot of shock value...just my opinion
Politically, who knows.
Technically, it's because it's laid out in columns, so when you zoom in enough to make it readable, you can see all of a line at a time.
Although one video shows going to Wikipedia at the end, you didn't see them try to zoom in and read it, because it would've shown how painful that will be, on a browser that shows "the real internet" instead of warping it down into a single non-horizontal-scrolling column like other mobile browsers do.
Once the phone is in people's hands, the cat will be out of the bag. I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on a Safari version that'll do the smart single-column conversion as an optional view.
Jobs' rant against the "mobile internet" was a little simplistic, aimed at the types who don't do much wireless handheld surfing. (I've been doing it daily since 1999. I have to say that my old Jornada 680 was the most usable because of its 640 wide screen and 2/3 full size keyboard. Nice device, but before its time.)
A lot of "real internet" pages aren't built for less than VGA (640) width devices.
Try it. Drop your window right now down to about 480 x 260 (the space you have left with the Safari menubar).
Looks like reading might work. Writing... the input textbox in this forum appears hard-coded to 540px wide.
Wonder if the authors of forum software will rewrite and cater now to the "480 crowd" .. iPhone users.
fixed width VS. elastic
There is a little probably here that I've been wondering about. The only websites that we have seen on the iPhone are those with a fixed width. NyTimes.com is fixed at a certian width and Fandango.com is at a fixed width also.
But some sites are elastic and expand to take full advantage of your window's width and don't have any hard coded width.
The problem is that we know that once a website like the nytimes.com is loaded, it is zoomed out to fit the fixed width of the website, and then you can zoom in. But since elastic sites have a width of 100%, then what width will they render at? I pray that they don't render at the width of 320 or 480 depending on how you have the iphone turned.
I hope that it would render at a reasonable width and zoomed out, but then that would cause a problem for the "apps" and websites that are being design for the iphone because they have a 100% width as well, but need to really be rendered with a width no larger than 480.
Hopefully safari will have some way of telling if content starts to overlap and will not render it any smaller. I guess macrumors.com will be rendered at its lowest hard coded width which will still cause some little problems.
There is a little probably here that I've been wondering about. The only websites that we have seen on the iPhone are those with a fixed width. NyTimes.com is fixed at a certian width and Fandango.com is at a fixed width also.
But some sites are elastic and expand to take full advantage of your window's width and don't have any hard coded width.
The problem is that we know that once a website like the nytimes.com is loaded, it is zoomed out to fit the fixed width of the website, and then you can zoom in. But since elastic sites have a width of 100%, then what width will they render at? I pray that they don't render at the width of 320 or 480 depending on how you have the iphone turned.
I hope that it would render at a reasonable width and zoomed out, but then that would cause a problem for the "apps" and websites that are being design for the iphone because they have a 100% width as well, but need to really be rendered with a width no larger than 480.
Hopefully safari will have some way of telling if content starts to overlap and will not render it any smaller. I guess macrumors.com will be rendered at its lowest hard coded width which will still cause some little problems.
We're all wondering about this. But if I understand you, we're all hoping it will render them at 320 or 480 (or in a future iPhone, as whatever) as needed. Just center the middle stuff and make sure banners can expand.
Btw, your app seems hardcoded to 320 width. Are you going to fix it so it looks good in 480 wide as well? Come visit at:
http://groups.google.com/group/iphonewebdev
Regardless of which website(s) they show in the TV ads, you can be sure that they have been testing all sorts of popular (and unpopular) websites to make sure the browser works well across the whole spectrum.
Side note: I wonder how many apple corporate employees take part in these discussions...not to spy, troll, or do any viral marketing, but just because they too don't know everything that's going on in Cupertino and want to see what others are saying...
Side note: I wonder how many apple corporate employees take part in these discussions...not to spy, troll, or do any viral marketing, but just because they too don't know everything that's going on in Cupertino and want to see what others are saying...
i would think its possible to use a rendering scheme that would in essence have the browser render the site at twice the screen resolution (640x960) or something along those lines (effectively doubling the dpi). even though it would wreak havoc on readability when its zoomed out thats okay.
Yes I'm going to change it to work in landscape mode a few days before June 29th. I just have it at 320 right now to make it easier to read in Safari. I have it in small writing on the app. All I have to do is change the width of my main container, it is design to be flexible.
Well Macrumors homepage didn't look too hot when I used iPhoney(not the skin for Palm devices, but the App that helps dev make iPhone based Apps)