wumpus
2021
Touch is fucking awesome for browsing the web, which I do constantly. Unless you are using a web site designed with 1999 tiny fonts and Windows 3.1 tiny drop down menus, touch is the most efficient way to browse and navigate the Internet I have ever experienced. More so every day, as designers start with market-dominant tablet designs which oh by the way works great for mouse and keyboard too thanks to Fitts Law.
Hell I am typing and browsing via touch right now.
mono
2022
Touch on a laptop is convenient for scrolling. That’s about it.
Zylon
2023
I’m assuming by “1999 tiny” fonts you mean “2013 tiny” fonts, since fonts around 1999 were generally <h1>larger</h1> than they are now, due to the smaller screens and lower resolutions of the time. And I assume by “Windows 3.1 tiny” drop-downs you mean standard HTML drop-down controls, which, again, are sized to the fonts surrounding them.
So stop gabbering like a marketing drone. You’re not fooling anyone.
wumpus
2024
Er, no, I mean modern web design. Try going to http://medium.com as an example. Large fonts, not much on the screen, big touch and click targets. Also feel free to look up Fitt’s Law. Who knows, you might even learn something!
rei
2025
Why would anybody want to browse using IE? Why would I want to leave Chrome with its addon functionality with my mouse? Are Win7/8 desktop apps on a 10" tablet at 1920x1080p at 100% (vs 200% or whatever blown up % that Win8 blew it up to) resolution accuracy optimized for touch targets? See the lingering toolbars and buttons’ touch targets for Office 2013.
No. Win8.x is proof positive it’s failing hard on the Metro/Modern UI/touch front for Win-Tablet apps. People will continue to opt for Android/iOS for tablet apps for the forseable future. I expect RT to be taken behind the woodshed and shot in '14.
Yes, if by modern you mean it’s a website built for consumption on a tablet. It has a tremendous amount of wasted real estate with it’s empty white space and ginormous text.
rei
2027
Stop trying to make fetch–er, Windows 8 tablet apps happen.
sharaleo
2028
Just for the sake of comparison, let’s compare that Medium site to another - Boardgamegeek. Now, I’d probably not hold up BGG as as example of good modern web design, but these shots clearly demonstrate very different schools of thought.
I know which I’d prefer if I was on a tablet and I know which I’d prefer if I was sitting in front of my 27" monitor, but switch that around and they are not good examples of design that fits the consumption medium.
Now if you have to design your website that will be displayed on a high resolution monitor with touch in mind, such that the first example is the result, I think it is a poor outcome - there is just too little information on the screen and too much work required to get to more information, whether scrolling by touch, or by mouse, regardless of Fitt’s Law.
Of course, it goes without saying that the BGG layout is hardly conducive to touch input with targets as small as they are.
I hate to even look at that site
Yes, Medium is pretty terrible!
It certainly isn’t well done.
Some people don’t eat meat.
A single fuck I refuse to give. Medium is well done, a rare treat. In a world of. . . meet.
Seriously, though, this is an issue that got resolved a long time ago: many sites have two versions, one designed for small touch screens (aka the Mobile version) and one for desktops. The limitations of the mobile format (large text, lots of whitespace) makes most of the mobile sites suck compared to the desktop version, unless you’re on a touch device with limited screen real estate.
In fact, I prefer the desktop sites over the mobile versions on my iPad - I’d rather have the information than a touch-friendly design, provided I have a large-enough screen. The difference between the Amazon mobile and desktop sites is nearly what we’re seeing with Medium vs. Board Game Geek, and I specifically ask my browser to pretend to Amazon that it’s a desktop so I don’t have to deal with the severe limitations of the mobile version.
wumpus
2036
Well, regardless of what some of you neanderthals may believe, the future of the web looks a lot more like Medium than ancient, crusty old Board Game Geek.
Touch is winning, on all screen sizes – it’s just simpler, for the world.
I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean we have to go with crappy designs like Medium which waste far more screen real estate than Touch demands. There’s a middle ground between designs with tiny touch targets and Medium.
Zylon
2038
No, it’s isn’t. Medium is clearly a site designed for mobile consumption. Its information density on a desktop monitor is laughable. Meanwhile, desktop-friendly sites like the one you’re on right now continue to be only barely usable on touch screens.
Really, at this point it’s hard to tell whether or not you’re just trolling. Your criticism of “1999 tiny” fonts is every bit as transparently ridiculous as if I were to make fun of web sites today for using a 16th-century alphabet.
wumpus
2039
Am I trolling? My blog is on the first page of Google results for Fitts Law. You tell me if I am trolling.
In related news, every single reply I posted here was composed on a touchscreen. Including this one. The only keyboard harmed in the creation of these posts was on my screen.
stusser
2040
No clue why you’d put yourself through that. When I’m forced to use a mobile device to post on forums or compose a long email, etc, I use voice recognition whenever possible. Even swiping android keyboards are way too slow. But really I just don’t do that, because a real keyboard is so much faster and more comfortable. Anyway, a bit of a derail.
Medium is a beautiful site and is a great way to actually read content, even on my 27" monitor. I don’t know that I would call it “the future of web design”. It’s an attractive site. It’s not the only way to make an attractive site.
