In Depth: 8 of the best web browsers for Linux
The web browser is becoming the single most important piece of desktop software, if it isn't already. Not only is the web a huge source of information, but also the conduit to a huge world of hosted apps and interconnected cloud services covering a range of new computer-based experiences.
When you're shopping, you want security; when you're working, you want reliability; and when you're being entertained, you want speed and compatibility with many different types of media.
On top of this, most websites employ client-side JavaScript and Ajax technologies, placing an extra processing burden on the browser. Building a browser that can cope with all this and be easy to use while offering a great experience is quite a tall order.
Our rules of testing only stable, released software have to be suspended in this case, because many of the browsers are in permanent beta. Improvements are constantly being made to loading times, JavaScript engines and such. Therefore, we have used the latest publically available version.
This mainly affects Chrome, Opera and Firefox. The way we chose which applications to include in this Roundup was quite simple – they're the most popular Linux browsers currently developed and in use. We're including only proper versions of the browsers available now, with no pre-alpha or nightly builds allowed.
Firefox
Once the poster child of the new web revolution, but is Firefox past it?
There is a description of Firefox as a flashy sports car, hampered by all sorts of esoteric hardware welded to the outside. As analogies go, it isn't a bad one. The original impetus for developing Firefox was to create a sleek, fast and efficient browser that didn't carry a lot of complicated UI features and speed-hogging code that only a minority would use.
Of course, the outcome of that is that the browser soon garnered itself a gazillion extensions. The meteoric rise of Firefox (it managed to get around 20% of browser share in the first year, and is now thought to be the client of choice for nearly half of the web traffic in the world) shows that the sleek and unfussy style was a good call on behalf of the authors.
Firefox's popularity was down to more than just speed, though – it innovated too, and strove for real standards compliance, in a world where browsers like Internet Explorer wanted the web to work their way. But that was in the past – what has Firefox done for us lately?
Most of the recent changes seem to be in terms of customisation, but there are also technical innovations. Support for the Web Open Font Format, for example – a recent development that simplifies embedding downloadable typefaces in a way that keeps font developers happy and reduces bandwidth.
Firefox is also pretty hot on the new HTML 5 technologies, with support for OGG containers and Google's WebM format, MathML and more. Certainly there's no sign of Firefox resting on its considerable laurels.
Coupled with an excellent security record and an amazing amount of customisation potential, Firefox makes a solid browser choice.
Verdict
Firefox
Version: 3.6.3
Website: www.getfirefox.org
Solid and reliable, configurable and surprisingly nimble.
Rating: 9/10
Flock
The so-called social browser throws up some surprises
Flock began life around the same time as Firefox, but the rationale behind the two is very different. Flock concentrates on what many people actually use the web for, so its world-view is centred around Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace and various webmail services.
The idea was to build in the kind of tools you would need – a blog editor app, a photo uploader – and also to provide a way to consume this media alongside 'normal' websites. At first glance, this gives it the appearance of some sort of multimedia command centre, which isn't too far from the truth.
Unfortunately, running the sidebar to keep track of Twitter or Flickr causes the responsiveness to drop as CPU power (and bandwidth) are drawn off to make sure you're seeing the latest tweets or pictures. Of course, there is no way around the fact that if you want to see web pages and Twitter feeds side by side, the information has to be downloaded and processed.
Maybe the priorities could have been adjusted better, but for a user on a 1Mb link or slower, this is a poor compromise. In terms of its rendering performance and compliance, Flock seems to be at the rear of the pack on many occasions.
Although ostensibly still in development and using the same Mozilla codebase as Firefox, a year of standing still has left it suffering. Flock is neat if you spend your day worrying about what's happening on Facebook, but much of the functionality of Flock can be replaced by add-ons (albeit just as painfully slowly) or perhaps by dedicated apps. It does have some interesting, and even innovative, UI features, but is also more than a little out of date.
Verdict
Flock
Version: 2.5
Website: www.flock.com
It does have a different take on the web, but it's a little sad and neglected.
Rating: 5/10
Midori
It uses WebKit, borrows ideas from everywhere, and is named after a drink
Calling a browser after a liqueur commonly found in holiday tipples might seem a little oddball, but perhaps the unintentional cocktail reference stands up to scrutiny. Midori is a browser designed primarily to be light on resources, but still have plenty of the modern world's essential features.
To this end, some of the headline features of other browsers have been thrown into the mix – Opera's Speed Dial feature is here, the obligatory Google search bar and Firefox-like extensions (although nowhere near as many). Can a melange of borrowed ideas produce the ultimate browser experience?
Well, it does deliver on the lightweight aspect, at least. The memory usage may not be quite minimal, but it's no processor or bandwidth hog.
The page rendering is based on WebKit, so it performs as well as other browsers using this engine. There are a selection of add-ons for the browser, to do things like increase customisation options, as well as support for Netscape-style plugins for supporting different media through Totem and Rhythmbox.
One curious thing is that the URL bar has implemented the 'type anything and if it isn't a URL then search for it' behaviour, but there's still a separate web search gadget.
One very handy feature is the trash icon on the main toolbar – this enables you to see tabs you've recently closed and just re-open them by selecting from the list. Many browsers allow you to re-open URLs from the history, but few as easily as this.
While it does perform reasonably well all-round, there is no compelling reason to choose this browser over the default Gnome browser, Epiphany, or indeed any of the bigger boys.
Verdict
Midori
Version: 0.2.2
Website: www.twotoasts.de
A pretty average performer, though it's light on resources.
Rating: 5/10
Epiphany
The almost anonymous Gnome browser shouldn't be overlooked
Those using a Gnome desktop probably have Epiphany and hadn't even noticed. As the default web browser for this desktop, it usually resides in the menu as 'web browser' and even calling up the 'About' box would give you little clue as to its origins.
Epiphany used to make use of the Gecko rendering engine, but one of the benefits of being open source is that you can switch back-ends if you feel like it.
The main reason for the Midori browser popping up as an alternative to Epiphany for Gnome purists was that it implemented WebKit. Epiphany may have taken a while to catch up, but it now sports WebKit too, and there's little to choose between them in terms of speed or compatibility.
Epiphany very much subscribes to the 'less is more' concept of desktop software, and thus there aren't pages and pages of configuration options or user-tweakable parts. This does make it simpler to use, but also a little more frustrating for those who actually would like to, for example, specify pop-up preferences on a site-by-site basis.
The power of WebKit shines through, and although Epiphany has nowhere near the number of people tweaking and refining its performance as some of the other browsers in this Roundup, it performs admirably well in the tests and by no means feels sluggish when viewing pages.
Although Epiphany occasionally seems to score slightly higher than Midori in certain tests, in effect these two browsers are pretty much the same speed-wise (as you might expect since they're close to identical under the hood) and the results are well within the margins of error.
Verdict
Epiphany
Version: 2.28.2
Website: http://projects.gnome.org/epiphany
Just because it's basic doesn't mean it's pointless.
Rating: 5/10
Konqueror
The only practitioner of the read-write web, Konqueror soldiers on
For a long time, Konqueror was just about the best thing in KDE. Not only was it a capable, standards-compliant browser (although at the time nobody had worked out how to support all those proprietary extensions), but it was also an awesome file manager.
The two functions sat side by side, and the implementation of KParts means that, in Konqueror, pretty much everything is just an object to be rendered and interacted with, whether it's a local directory, a remote FTP site, a Samba share, a website or whatever.
Times change and, although old Konqy is still the default browser for KDE, its filesharing function has been hijacked by Dolphin. Its rendering engine is another story – that was used by Apple to produce the WebKit library, powering Safari and a great number of other browsers.
Konqueror is just about the only browser still sticking to the KHTML renderer, but why not? It may not be the fastest tool in the box anymore, but it still does a reasonable job of supporting standards and supports a great amount of HTML 5 already.
Raw speed in downloading and rendering pages is one thing, the speed at doing the things you want to do is another. Konqueror's KIO and ability to run as a file manager make it much more efficient if you're uploading files to FTP sites or WebDav shares, because the interaction is seamless.
Most browsers are designed as consumers of the web, but Konqueror treats the web as just another resource to be read from or copied to.
Konqueror also has a pretty low footprint on the KDE desktop, because so many of the resources it needs are already loaded, in comparison to the likes of Firefox or Chrome.
Verdict
Konqueror
Version: 4.4.2
Website: www.konqueror.org
Slightly left behind in the speed stakes, but still a versatile tool
Rating: 6/10
Opera
Opera stands out with an unusual take on what a browser should be
Being closed source (though free to use), Opera has its own rendering engine (Presto) and JavaScript engine, accounting for the more varied performance in some of the tests we subjected it to. Opera also has different ideas about the user experience and how the web should work.
Opera Turbo is a nifty compression technology that could boost the speed of many websites, for example (though it's impossible to really empirically test this, it does seem to work for some sites).
Opera Unite is another interesting feature, which builds a kind of personal network between the user and friends (who also use Opera) to share files, links and other information. In short, there's plenty of thinking about the user experience going on here.
This is a very able browser with all the security, personalisation and privacy features you would expect. For plugins, it relies on loading your Netscape-style libraries, and features widgets rather than extensions. The difference? Widgets are less like alterations to the browser, and more like specific tools or clients for web services, such as the weather.
Despite the makers' assertions, it seems from our tests that Opera isn't the fastest browser available. In use, though, it seems very fast and responsive. The JavaScript stress tests may show the efficiency of the underlying engines, but in reality you are unlikely to visit many websites that use so much intensive JavaScript as to notice the difference.
The 10.50 release for Linux has been a long time coming, but you can download a beta version for testing now.
Verdict
Opera
Version: 10.10
Website: www.opera.com
Great web experience, though the speed claims are unfounded.
Rating: 8/10
Google Chrome
It isn't without flaws, but is it close enough to awesome?
Let's be clear – it is not surprising that Chrome is fast. Almost all the development effort on Chrome since it was first launched has focused on this, from endless tweaks to the JavaScript engine to adding new technologies like pre-fetching DNS.
Sometimes these are not all-round benefits – pre-fetching DNS is a good example. In this case, the browser sees what links are on the page and pops out a process to request a DNS lookup. When you come to click on such a link, it means that the result should already be in the cache. No lookups is good, but it also results in a bit of wasted internet traffic and bandwidth. Generally though, most users aren't worried about this, or just don't know that it's happening.
Anyone who has had 250 tabs open and had Firefox crash on the very last one will know how painful it is to get everything back. That's why Chrome spawns a new process for each tab, so when something goes wrong, you don't lose everything. It's a system that works well, and avoids catastrophes when it does struggle.
Chrome is not the greatest ever browser. There are times when tabs seem to fail for no adequate reason. There are issues with ease of use. The scope of plugins is not as vast as Firefox, and you could argue that it is wasteful with resources.
It does deliver on being a slick, fast, secure and usable browsing tool. And when we say fast, we mean very fast. It may have been optimised to do well in most of the tests, but in everyday use, it is also very, very fast.
The minimalist interface maximises your useable web viewing area, and while it does take a bit of getting used to – with the menus being many times more fiddly to deal with – that's a fair compromise for many users.
Verdict
Google Chrome
Version: 5.0.375.55 beta
Website: www.google.com/chrome
It isn't perfect, but it is moving towards it.
Rating: 10/10
SeaMonkey
The idea that just wouldn't lie down and die.
The original Netscape browser was an 'internet suite', which combined the functions of web browser, mail client and HTML editor. SeaMonkey continues that ambition, and adds more in the form of IRC chat, news reader, feed reader and additional development tools.
As it's built largely from the Mozilla codebase, it does benefit from the same technical and performance advances. As with Flock, there is a theoretical compatibility with Firefox for extensions, but the same limitations apply – many extensions target specific Firefox functionality or UI features that SeaMonkey doesn't have.
SeaMonkey's performance results should be viewed with the caveat that, as we write this, a 2.1 version is nearing release, which is likely to include more up-to-date Mozilla code, with increases in speed and compatibility.
The user interface is chunky, but very workable, and all the features are easy to find. In some ways it's like stepping back a few generations in terms of design, but many people liked the easy-to-understand large icons and the simplicity of tab handling, so that may not be a disadvantage.
The strategy behind SeaMonkey does seem to be sound, though. For many people, using the internet is a functional thing rather than a form of entertainment. Gluing together all the tools you'll need in one package is actually a pretty good idea.
The email component is good, and while the page composer may lack some of the more helpful tools of a standalone editor, it is simple to use and works well enough. For web developers it also has the JavaScript console and debugger.
Verdict
SeaMonkey
Version: 2.0.4
Website: www.seamonkey-project.org
A great all-rounder – looks dated, but works fine.
Rating: 8/10
The best Linux web browser is...
Chrome: 10/10
Like most software categories, there will never be any one browser that suits absolutely everyone. Some may demand the flexibility of Konqueror and its excellent KIO system. Some will no doubt prefer something simple, like Midori and Epiphany, while others will want something all-inclusive, like SeaMonkey.
Opera has been running on Linux since version 4.0 back in 2000. It's probably the most different of the browsers on test simply because it has been in closed development since then. There was a time when Opera offered the best browser experience, but the Linux versions lag behind a little, which makes it hard for it to compete.
Firefox is obviously a great browser and still the most popular choice for Linux users. If you're completely happy with Firefox and would find it a wrench to leave all your favourite add-ons, then there is no great need to change.
The outright winner has to be Chrome. Not only did it blitz everything else in the speed tests, but it holds up in the compatibility stakes too. Although we were amazed by the speed of Chrome, we shouldn't forget the wonderful array of developer tools that are also embedded.
They may not be a sellable feature to mainstream users, but for anyone developing complex websites, the timing graphs and profiling tools are a real help. The really interesting thing will be, considering the Chromium project is open source, whether any of these technologies will be assimilated into other projects.
What we have seen in the last few years is that the battle of the browsers is probably more intense now than it has been for a few years. With the transition to HTML5 and the explosive appearance of Chrome on the scene with its aggressive speed increases, the pace of innovation and change in browser technology won't be slowing down any time soon.
 |  |
Read More ...
Review: Corsair Nova V64 64GB
What are your minimum requirements for an SSD? We know what ours are. First, we'd like a controller chipset that not only delivers good performance but keeps doing so for longer than a few weeks.Next, we want enough space for our operating system of choice and our favourite apps. We definitely don't want to shunt application installs onto a secondary drive. Finally, we'd rather not flog Granny to the glue factory to pay for it.
At first glance, Corsair's latest budget-orientated drive, the Corsair Noca V64, nails the lot. It's powered by the proven Indilinx Barefoot controller.
Not the fastest SSD chip in town, perhaps; but thanks to frequent firmware polishing, it's now a very consistent performer. In fact, the Nova V64 beats all comers in our file decompression benchmark.
Admittedly, the margin is small enough to be within the realms of error. We don't think the V64 is actually the fastest drive here in any objective sense. Indeed, it's well behind on both sequential reads and 4k random performance.
However, when it comes to real-world performance, it's clearly no slouch. Subjectively, the end-user experience is up there with the best.
It also packs support for the crucial TRIM command along with a cleaner tool enabling you to buff the drive manually.
Affordably priced
Likewise, at £150 the Nova V64 is competitive if not conspicuously bargainous for a 64GB SSD. More to the point, it's broadly affordable, allowing Granny hope of a ripe old age.
All of which means our only major concern is the drive's capacity. Is 59.5GB formatted truly enough?
Related Links
| |
Read More ...
In Depth: The web designer's guide to the iPad
While it remains to be seen if the iPad's initial market success can be maintained, it's possible the device has the potential to be a game-changer in computing and, by extension, browsing the web and designing for it. Andy Hume, web developer for Clearleft, sees the launch of the iPad as "a significant step in the advancement of consumer computing, locking away the complexities of a powerful operating system beneath a streamlined, polished user interface".
Web design specialist Christopher Schmitt agrees, describing it as "a great tool for people who experience the web – period" and adding that he enjoys being "in an industry where we can have our standards-based designs on this kind of device – fully portable, with a large touchscreen and 10-hour battery life". Schmitt then quips: "Can your laptop do that?" and the answer is "no".
The thing is, the iPad is also more than just a giant iPod touch. "It's the other way around – the iPod touch is a small, cramped iPad," argues web design pioneer Jon Bains. This pair of opinions should trigger your first concern regarding designing for the iPad – if it really is different from everything that's come before, how should you approach creating websites for it?
Damian Proctor, head of design for Redweb, believes much of the challenge is being in unproven territory. "We've no evidence yet whether conventional wisdom regarding desktop web design applies," he says, "or if designers should draw on insight provided by mobile projects." He predicts that a new hybrid will emerge, combining aspects of desktop and mobile design.
Bright screen
Part of the problem is the device itself. Bobby Ghoshal, co-founder of Buckowl, points out that the iPad's screen is so bright that long-term use can fatigue users. "Designers must consider colour contrast," he suggests, "perhaps using light greys instead of white, and dark greys instead of full-on blacks."
News Corp design director D. Keith Robinson adds that the device's pixel density, combined with screen dimensions that "lie somewhere between a desktop and mobile phone", can mean that neither downscaling desktop sites nor upscaling mobile sites is ideal.
BUILT FOR SPEED: Nike's iPad optimised website is cleaner, sleeker and faster than its desktop equivalent
Most importantly, though, the iPad is a large touchscreen device. "This means the most fundamental long-term difference for people working on the web is the transition from mouse to finger," says Hume – who nonetheless thinks that Safari for iPad does a decent job of delivering web pages that weren't built with touch in mind.
"People don't spend much time thinking about this," he says. "But there's a lot of complexity in rendering an interface that defines hover and mouse-in/mouse-out features on a device that has no pointing mechanism!"
Raluca Budiu, user experience specialist for Nielsen Norman Group feels that such issues, stemming from long-time web design conventions, potentially scupper the iPad from a basic usability standpoint. "Full websites generate read-tap asymmetry – the font size may be big enough to allow comfortable reading, but not precise link selection," she says.
Budiu also questions gestural inconsistencies across the device – for example, a pinch zooms maps but increases font sizes elsewhere – but admits browsing "is closer to using a desktop than an iPhone", an experience that "can definitely be improved, but isn't too bad to start with".
Standards compliance
Although unconventional in interface terms, the iPad is a good citizen when it comes to web standards. "Safari for iPad is one of the most advanced, standards-compliant browsers around," maintains Hume. He also argues that the lack of Flash support doesn't hinder the device, although he's disappointed that the iPad's browser fares poorly regarding font embedding.
"Safari for iPad only supports SVG rendering," he points out. "I hope this will improve in later releases, because font embedding is becoming a high profile technology for web designers."
Another benefit of the iPad is that WebKit is its only browser engine. "This should appeal to designers," enthuses Tom Kershaw, senior art director for Beam, "since you always know exactly what you're designing for, and, much like Flash, you won't have to worry about how your design will appear on several different browsers. While this doesn't mean you should stop designing for other systems, it does mean you can focus more when creating an iPad-specific site."
The iPad's strong support for web standards may also benefit designers in another way when iPhone OS 4 arrives later this year – Apple's iAd platform is based around HTML5, offering opportunities to anyone well-versed in the technology.
Revealed by Jobs at the iPhone OS 4 preview event in April, iAd aims to provide rich-media in-app mobile advertising that, according to Apple, combines the emotion of TV with the interactivity of the web. "I've seen iPhone developers do amazing HTML5 ad tests," says Ghoshal, although he sees such demos having a wider importance.
ADDING ADS: Although not iPad-specific, the HTML5-based iAd system could provide opportunities for web designers
"I'm optimistic about the prospect of interactivity in HTML5, even though the demos like the Toy Story 3 carousel Jobs showed would have been easier to make in Flash. The opportunity is not necessarily in design, but in making this interactivity exist with internet standards that have been tried and tested – and without the use of plug-ins."
Back in the browser, designers aren't united regarding optimising for iPad. "I don't see the need unless iPad owners are your core audience – although I can guarantee if you make something look good on the iPad, it'll still look good on a desktop," argues Bains.
Proctor offers a slightly different viewpoint. "Designing specifically for the iPad means users aren't left in the lap of the gods." Removing the need to zoom to read text or ensure the correct link is prodded removes another barrier between the user and content.
"You don't want users having to consciously adjust viewing behaviour because your content doesn't arrive formatted for easy consumption." When working on designs, the nature of the iPad's interface will inevitably inform your work.
"When using a finger and touchscreen, you lose the hover state," says Proctor. "Fitts's Law and the concept of 'mousing' also need new consideration. Will users be as accurate with their finger as a mouse cursor? A finger doesn't stop moving when it slides past the edge of the screen, so having important links at the edge of the page may not help in placing such elements within easy reach."
Ghoshal thinks it's worth thinking about how people hold their device. "I recommend designing any iPad app or website to be navigable with your thumbs," he says. "In my experience, typing and other actions that provide control are more actionable when my thumbs have full access to the buttons."
Ultimately, though, most design styling and layout will arrive from the type of experience the designer wants to deliver, says Ghoshal, who mirrors many in considering the best iPad sites to be those that resemble high-quality magazines.
"Big images, beautiful text, 'scannable' headlines – these all make for the kind of experience that keeps my attention," he says. "I will, though, caution against text-heavy sites on a white background. The backlit iPad screen isn't winning any points for long-term textual consumption. Do your users a favour and mix in photos and video to make for a less strenuous experience."
Understanding device orientation is also important for successful iPad design, and this is something few web designers will have battled with. For Budiu, orientation switching is a usability concern:
"Some iPad apps lack consistency between modes – sometimes features are only available in landscape mode and users don't find them, so we don't recommend having different designs for different orientations. If you think otherwise, ensure everything that can be done in one orientation is available in the other, and be aware that users may become disoriented when switching modes."
For websites, orientation also changes the nature of the fold. "The ability to change orientation makes the fold exist twice, in two different places," says Ghoshal. He jokes that he hopes this will stop people worrying about whether users will scroll – "because if there was ever a device that makes someone want to scroll, the iPad is it".
Bains thinks savvy designers may be able to capitalise on this aspect of the iPad. "In portrait, it feels like you've double the area, even though the page is simply scaling," he says. "Do your maths and your fold is at (1024/768)*1024 = 1365. If you're designing specifically for the iPad and don't need to scroll, that could be a 'hard' position for a footer, to frame a page and give your site a solid 'app' feel."
FOLD OF DREAMS: Since the iPad is designed to be used in any orientation, there are effectively two 'folds'
However, Robinson argues that there's little value in addressing orientation (bar ensuring a site is usable in both modes) unless you're designing a native app. "In doing so, a designer can take advantage of the native interactions, and the benefits are a much more pleasant experience for end users," he says.
"We've seen similar with the iPhone. A mobile web app can deliver a fairly good experience, and the same goes for Safari for iPad, but anyone really interested in giving users the best will go native."
App-happy
The drive for iPhone OS apps is so strong that some commentators believe apps will 'take over' from websites. This is unlikely in a general sense – there are thousands of iPhone OS apps, but users of other platforms have far fewer.
However, Budiu points out that, while in 2009, research showed that mobile users preferred websites to apps, in 2010 the opposite was true for iPhone users, due to the browser being associated with slow, non-optimised sites.
On iPhone OS, app options are to go native via the App Store or create a web app, based on web standards that also utilises the iPad's native capabilities. In our interview, developer Matt Gemmell talks about the former path, but the latter is also worth considering.
Web apps can be deployed to multiple platforms, updated without going through an approval process, and, as Schmitt says, enable you to "leverage your experience for a new platform". He recommends deciding whether your web app can be self-contained.
"If the user needs to go outside to another app, your idea might not be suitable for an app," he says. "You also shouldn't have an app that only provides one piece of the puzzle – for example, don't offer movie showtimes for a city without also offering times for nearby theatres and the ability to buy tickets."
Hume reckons the App Store's currently too strong a draw for users and developers, hindering the uptake of web apps. But he believes they'll flourish long-term "once more mobile devices support HTML5 and touch, and as developers get to grips with the possibilities HTML5 offers for web apps".
Schmitt's more optimistic, predicting that the likes of the PhoneGap framework will result in an explosion of web apps. "It lowers the barrier to entry," he points out, "and means you needn't use a dedicated developer to build a native app."
PhoneGap can also aid in deployment across multiple platforms. Clearly, the lines are blurring, and Gemmell reckons you'll soon not know whether you're using a web app, a website or a native app. "Any prediction focusing on technologies is ultimately meaningless anyway, since computing is about the user experience above all," he argues.
"The real currency isn't the technology – it's the ability to empathise with your user, satisfy their needs, and delight them with how much your software understands how they want to use it. Real professionals care about that goal, and use any available technology as a means to reach it."
Game changer
So will the iPad shake up the industry, inform design for other devices, and change how we approach design for the web? "I think for many it will change how design is approached," says Robinson. "If we look at the way people are going to be consuming web content, we'll see a shift from desktop to laid-back, casual consumption."
Although this will hit home with many, Robinson argues that the iPad shouldn't influence the way all sites are designed. "A designer's job is to produce the best possible experience," he says. "To do that, you must design for the context in which users are interacting with your designs. The content might be the same, but the use-case and context is greatly different when you're comparing iPad to a desktop browser or a mobile phone."
Budiu largely agrees, although she notes there's some overlap between iPad and iPhone design principles. "To the extent that there will be a huge iPad design wave, it may spill back some awareness of good design practices to other devices," she admits. "But, overall, the constraints are quite different. On mobile, the small screen size imposes a different page layout. Every extra click on the mobile web counts, but it doesn't mean as much on the desktop or an iPad."
LEARN MORE: Once you're the marketing drivel, apple.com/ipad provides a useful tech spec overview
For designer Tom Muller, things are simpler, with the iPad just being another step in the evolution of the way we design for the web. "As with every new web-capable device, we have to take into account subtle differences and play to its strengths and weaknesses," he says.
"With the iPhone, we created iPhone-optimised sites that sat within its viewport. With the iPad, it depends how prolific it becomes, but I think that with its laptop-like screen real estate, similar tweaks will be needed to make sites great.
"However, I think it'd be bad practice to develop websites specifically for one platform – the iPad in this case – just as we no longer create sites specifically for the Mac or PC."
| |
Read More ...
No comments:
Post a Comment