

Why the iPad is not for web browsing (yet) - mortenjorck
http://interuserface.net/2010/02/why-the-ipad-is-not-for-web-browsing-yet/

======
n8agrin
1) The author is criticizing an unreleased product.

2) The author points out that some current "interactive components" available
in a mouse-dominated world won't work in a touch based paradigm and labels
these UI paradoxes. These include mouseovers and flyouts. The thing is, hidden
behavior (requiring the end user learn these interactions) is almost always
bad UX. I don't see the paradox there.

3) The author points out that web-based Google Maps may be a problem on the
iPad. Note that web-based Google Maps (not just the iPhone native app) works
fine on the iPhones I've tried it on.

------
angelbob
This is a powerful thing to point out. Touchscreens really are a different
animal than mouse-based browsing, and in the short term it's going to require
building versions of sites specifically for them.

For the same reason, the iPad is brilliant -- you can't scale the desktop
metaphors down easily, but the iPhone interface scales up just fine. It may
not make a ton of money for that reason, but it _will_ enable the product
space, which nobody else has been able to do.

~~~
acid_bath
> in the short term it's going to require building versions of sites
> specifically for them.

Or re-think their design choices in the first place (which is of course
building a new version, but perhaps not specifically for touchscreens).

1 - Links should look like links. If I have to move my mouse around to figure
out which part I click or if it's clickable at all, it's a failure. I
shouldn't monitor my status bar or watch my mouse curser for a change. I'm not
saying everything should be underlined or something, but make clickable things
look like clickable things in whatever way is intuitive for the given site.

2 - Hover to navigate. Get rid of it. Find a way to make the click action do
the same thing. I abhor menu systems that require a series of mouseovers to
get to the clickable element. If I move my mouse a bit too far it disappears,
or FSM-forbid if I don't even know that I'm supposed to be able to just hold
my mouse over it to do an action. Also: Javascript required.

The above may not apply to flash widgets, so that's understandable. But even
some of the complaints in the linked article could be fixed with a better UI:

"Video players where the controls appear on mouseover and hide otherwise." -
OH NO! Maybe do what every app does already: tap once to show controls, fade
away after no clicks within a window. Is that hard?

"Menus that popup up subpage links when you mouse over a main button, vs.
going directly to a main category page when you click." See #2.

"Buttons that have important explanations/summaries on mouseover, which you
need to understand before deciding what to click." This is relatively valid,
but again, make your UI cleaner or more intuitive and this problem solves
itself. Look at game controllers for consoles: do they have tooltips?

"Functions that use mouseover to preview and click to commit; such as choosing
hair colors for an avatar: you mouse over the colors until your character
looks the way you like, and then you click to commit."

Hover becomes a click. Make a separate submit button. Done. Please hire me,
I'm apparently an exceptional UI engineer.

... Anyway, I'm not saying there wouldn't be issues of someone took an
existing for-desktop flash app and tried to run it on a touchscreen. Most
wouldn't work. That being said, is it really so hard to come up with a UI that
doesn't require mouse-hovers?

Is it impossible for Adobe to conceive of their product ever working on
something without a mouse? That when the mouse-n-curser paradigm is phased out
(and eventually it will be) that Adobe is going to close shop because there's
just _no_ way to do Flash w/ touchscreens?

I doubt it.

~~~
amackera
I don't think the article was making a case that it will be _difficult_ to
make design changes to fit the touch screen---just that it does, in fact,
require changes. It's another hurdle of adoption to jump over before the iPad
can really be considered the "best web browsing experience EVER" or whatever
they are marking it as.

~~~
acid_bath
Maybe I overreacted, but the article does make some pretty big claims: needing
an entirely new version of a site just for non-mouseover browsers? C'mon...

Re-tooling your site so that it's not _dependent_ on mouse-overs, fine. Making
a "third" version? Time to re-think your existing site.

------
rbanffy
Because it was not yet released?

------
kevinholesh
I agree that work needs to be done to optimize websites specifically for the
iPad, but most accessible* websites I can think of now would work just fine.

* Accessible means no Flash, no unnecessary JavaScript, and clean markup practices.

------
bensummers
Scrolling Google Maps like elements: Doesn't the iPhone use a two finger
scroll for this?

Only seeing drop down menus and interface elements when you hover over them:
Make them respond to a click as well as a hover. (and I think Facebook does
this already, I certainly remember having to click to get the log out link)

I think that's all the objections answered. Did I miss anything?

------
goodside
TLDR: Touchscreens are different from desktops. I don't have an iPad, but I
doubt Apple considered this.

------
adelevie
The iPad is not for _some_ web browsing.

Most of it should work fine and with time developers will utilize new APIs for
this new(ish) browsing style. Not a huge deal.

------
barrkel
I bet something can be done with multitouch to ameliorate this problem,
possibly introducing modes into touch, but it would require a learning curve
to use...

------
Semiapies
A clearer title might have been "Why the web is not ready for the iPad (yet)",
as people have seized upon this as some kind of attack on the iPad, when it's
nothing of the sort.

------
jsz0
Are mouse-overs really used that much anymore? I can't think of many sites I
visit that use them. I went to both examples (Yahoo & Facebook) on Safari and
I can't find any mouse-overs. Am I missing something?

