On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:32:17 +0000, Timothy Collinson
<xxxxxx@port.ac.uk> wrote:

>On 29 January 2017 at 04:27, Jeff Zeitlin <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The answer is definitely no, it's not. But I'm going to be doing some
>> testing. Before I start putting up lorem test pages with various
>> tweaks, I'd like to know what Real Users see when they access
>> Freelance Traveller on mobile devices. So, if you have a mobile
>> device, please try visiting a few Freelance Traveller pages, including
>> at least one each of...

>One of the main reasons I have, and carry, a 10" tablet is to handle web
>pages *well*, so I can't say I'm overly fussed at the prospect of a mobile
>friendly site.

You and me, both, though I'd not have too much trouble down to 8
tablets. But I do know that not everyone likes to carry a Big Honking
Tablet; some folks make do with phablets or even phones. It's those
people that I want to try to be more accommodating to.

>I *hate* trying to use my Library's mobile friendly version as I don't seem
>to be able to find everything, can't work out how to get to things I know
>are there, and feel even basic things take three times as long or three
>times as many clicks/taps.  (You can try it at www.port.ac.uk/library if
>you wish.  I'm sure the guy's done a good job and it's just me...)

Now, I'm not talking about making (essentially) two sites; I'm just
talking about making some relatively minor tweaks that Google's
PageSpeed tool suggested that will make the current site more "mobile
aware". For example:

 * Some mobile browsers will shrink the page to unreadability if there
   isn't a viewport metatag, because they're trying to emulate a
   desktop browser.

 * Font sizes may need to be a bit larger to accommodate small screens
   and fat fingers.

>>For informational purposes only - I'm not planning on changing PDFs at
>> present

>But that's good to hear.  The feature of FT that I *really* like is that
>you still produce a proper magazine looking PDF.  Maybe it's the librarian
>in me, maybe it's the dinosaur above.  I don't know.  (Though I'll admit
>that the web URL is easier to point people to an individual article after
>the month is up.)  Web pages would also not print neatly into a booklet I
>can put on my shelf, either. [1]

I chuckle at the word 'still'. The PDFs have only been around since
2010 (though six years can be an eternity in net-time), but the
website has been in its more-or-less present form since 1998, and the
oldest articles date back as far as 1993. Our initial versions were
hosted on such (now mostly gone) free hosts as dragonfire and neotown;
we never paid $35/year for the domain name.