PRP - artifact #6 - evaluation

This is my final writeup that ties up the last artifact created.

Those with touch screen devices, particularly Android and iPhone should point their browser to tinyurl.com/chinesehoroscope

"The final artifact sought to build on everything learnt in the previous test periods, whilst also contesting claims made in the literary sources.

CSS3’s opacity (RGBA) and rounded-corners were used, aware that degradation to lesser-equipped phones would equate to lesser-finessed visuals. Equally, typeface replacement plug-in Cufon was used, believed to offer the same assurance.

JQTouch’s anchored sections fuels a sense of speedy page loads, requiring only one index page for the entire site. Despite working for iPhone and Android, this plug-in unfortunately blocked less-equipped handsets from navigating the site. Consequently, plain anchors should be considered.

Pseudo-hover states were achieved through two means. Javascript image swaps were utilised on the homepage, but required pre-loading of the images. Windows/Mac OS exit buttons were implemented in the top-left of content boxes which when tapped expand beyond the finger to acknowledge the touch, achieved through image sprites. Sprites proved the more successful choice, functioning on more devices.

Graphically-led approaches raised caution in the literary sources but proved understandable to users. Comments were complimentary, “I liked the ‘x’ button” presumably due to its cohesion with desktop interface design. Additional symbols were used to depict positive (♥) and negative (✘)values. All test subjects interpreted these symbols correctly.

Fluid sizing was a successful consideration with both portrait and landscape wrapping content correctly. Despite some use of text-size:small, a 100% consensus ratified legible text.

Overall this artifact demonstrated that with the correct technology, relatively quick page are achievable alongside graphics permitting design. However, it also displayed the failure commonplace in alternate devices, mimicking desktop browser inadequacies experienced not long ago. If required to provide for all handsets, designs need to be limited, focusing more on page size. Alternatively, aesthetically pleasing design backed with component optimisation will require a per handset focus, almost app-like, for now."

--------------

Most of these points form to become a useful guide of what to include (and what not to include) in a touch screen mobile site design.

I am surprised in that some of the comments made in the literary sources have been disputed by my test results, a case in point being the use of images, or symbols. Admittedly though their use has been sparing compared to a desktop design, they still add worth to artifact #6. I think a good testament is that I would use them again in future builds of mobile sites, albeit aware of the risky repercussions and so paying suitable time to assess their success and effectiveness in the designs.

@