I think you are purposely misreading what he's writing.
What's the difference between building a separate mobile-optimized site and a separate experience for mobile users? Consider that this shouldn't require you to change anything on the backend. Your basically saying that a mobile-optimized experience is good... but only if it's on the same site?
> Why does the URL for the mobile-optimized site need to be different from the regular site?
It doesn't. He's saying if a user comes to your site, display him the mobile site.
> As it turns out, there are usability issues in having separate URLs for mobile and regular sites. For example, if I email or bookmark a link from my phone and later open it on a desktop computer, I get the wrong site.
That's a site issue. A site can easily render a different display based on the device.
> "create a separate mobile-optimized experience"
Your essentially arguing that he didn't use those exact words, and be damned the meaning.
What I am saying is that Nielsen deflects questions about responsive design by saying that he "was writing about user experience, not implementation", while clearly he does.
> It doesn't. He's saying if a user comes to your site, display him the mobile site.
He speaks about a "separate mobile site" and that you should "auto-redirect them to your mobile site" and provide links between the two sites. He also warns that Google might not index the separate site. It is pretty hard to read this other than that that separate mobile site has a separate URL.
> That's a site issue. A site can easily render a different display based on the device.
That's also what I am saying.
> Your essentially arguing that he didn't use those exact words, and be damned the meaning.
I'll be damned the words he uses, but he ventured into controversial implementation details, for which he caught some flak and I am suggesting an alternative formulation that steers clear of implementation details.
> How about you leave it to me to state my purpose?
Just like you let Nielsen state his purpose.
> It is pretty hard to read this other than that that separate mobile site has a separate URL.
No, it's pretty easy to read that when you understand what his purpose of writing is. Use your head! Your just being argumentative because he's actually backing up what he said with evidence.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say, how can you suggest displaying a different site without someone being able to twist it into an implementation detail?
Responsive design is an implementation detail (requiring different CSS).
I swear, you are missing the forest for the trees.
You'll disagree of course, because your predisposed to. Nielsen is wrong, despite having the evidence to back it up, and you are right, because OMG he used this specific wording which an ONLY be interpreted in one way, my way. Feel free to respond, but I can't lower myself to discuss this any further.
What's the difference between building a separate mobile-optimized site and a separate experience for mobile users? Consider that this shouldn't require you to change anything on the backend. Your basically saying that a mobile-optimized experience is good... but only if it's on the same site?
> Why does the URL for the mobile-optimized site need to be different from the regular site?
It doesn't. He's saying if a user comes to your site, display him the mobile site.
> As it turns out, there are usability issues in having separate URLs for mobile and regular sites. For example, if I email or bookmark a link from my phone and later open it on a desktop computer, I get the wrong site.
That's a site issue. A site can easily render a different display based on the device.
> "create a separate mobile-optimized experience"
Your essentially arguing that he didn't use those exact words, and be damned the meaning.