

Mobile sites. Not just mini versions of websites. Javascript in Freckle. - thesethings
http://mir.aculo.us/2010/10/15/how-we-use-mobile-javascript-in-freckle/

======
Xurinos
I noticed a lot of Raphael love lately. What about jquery.svg?

    
    
      http://plugins.jquery.com/project/svg
    
    

I do not know if it is still true, but jquery.svg offers over Raphael the
ability to import SVGs, and your twines are all the events that jquery already
offers.

~~~
eclark
it requires a plugin to view on IE. That is a negative that is hard to
overlook.

~~~
Xurinos
it = jquery.svg or Raphael?

~~~
eclark
Sorry jquery.svg

------
yatsyk
Interesting article, thank you! One small note according SVG: Android still
lacks svg support(<http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1376>) so
you need to have workarounds.

~~~
madrobby
For this reason (and others), we don't show the iPhone version to Android
users. Sadly, the Android browser (especially before Android 2.2) is really
lacking—it doesn't even do animated GIFs.

------
iworkforthem
It's looking great in iPhone! How does it look in a Blackberry or Nokia or
Android or Windows Mobile? These market share are just as large as the
iPhone(i could be wrong about the market shares).

~~~
mhd
I don't know about the BlackBerry, but as Android basically uses the same
rendering engine it should be roughly equivalent, and now that iPhone
developers can't simply hard-code resolutions anymore, everyone wins.

~~~
madrobby
That is not entirely true. The various versions of WebKit and the capabilities
of the phones vary widely.

You can't just make one version and throw in flexible CSS. That doesn't even
work within the iOS platform (between iPhones and iPads).

These are very different, from the point of view of the user. For example, on
the iPad it's easy to use multiple fingers at the same time, while on a phone,
two or three fingers are the upper limit (and it's really hard to exactly hit
a target then).

Next to that, people also have different expectations on various platforms
(like buttons being in different locations), etc. etc.

My point is that you can't make one app that works great everywhere. You need
to know your audience and provide really great custom-made, hand-optimized
solutions. Anything that promises automatic multi-platform compatibility is an
exercise in mediocrity.

Who's using Java applications on their desktop? Right, nobody. It just sucks
and doesn't work; and that's why platform-specific desktop apps are still
alive and well. The same thing is true for mobile web apps.

