Internet years are like dog years; much, much shorter than calendar years. This directs to the somewhat sore entrance that no web project can function in terms of long timescales. A web -application that gets two years to enlarge will be obsolete long earlier than it is released. In fact, in our experience, the life of a web project is more frequently deliberate in weeks than in months. The pace with which web projects have to be finished clearly puts the association under substantial stress.
Very frequently the clients don’t know precisely what they want to attain through the web application. They might not even have a plain thought of the target users. They very over and over again perplex their own purposes with the user’s causes for using the application. They are concerned about hackers and viruses, but want to present highest entrance to their users. The difference between yesterdays internet projects and the web applications of today is the truth that the latter carry the user’s errands, in dissimilarity to just providing in order and advertising jive.
Web technology, while in a stable state of development, places some serious restraint on web – applications. mainly in judgment to stand -alone applications that run on a normal P C. Very little “cleverness” or program logic can be programmed in the web application, error handling is very poor and the border is made up of chronological conversation. These issue, and many more, can make scheming a usable boundary quite challenging though not unfeasible.
So the average web project is often faced with
– clients and users who frequently have very fuzzy ideas of what they really want to attain.
– a disparity between the client’s and the users’ objectives. – technological fetters that confront the idea of functional applications.
– high expectations the web developers should create something concrete within tremendously short time -spans.
These cost-effective, technological and managerial constraints often result in an approach that can look like the Wild West.
The mobile phone has hard to believe reach – users have their phones with them at home, in the car, at work, in the store. Mobile devices are used on the go, are geographically susceptible, and are chiefly used to regain context-sensitive information swiftly: looking up a phone number, examination an address, reading a restaurant assessment, or finding a map and directions. Because the mobile atmosphere is a overwhelmingly different experience, it does not make sense to basically point mobile users to a fixed website and miss out on the exclusive potential of the mobile environment. Designers must not think of the mobile location as a poor proxy for desktop sites and applications. in its place, we must consider what works best within the context of real-world mobile browsing, and transport happy and functionality customized to the platform. In some cases, this means offering a separation of satisfied and functionality. It might also mean contribution satisfied and functionality sole to the mobile platform. Benefits of the Mobile Web
o Location awareness (GPS)
o Accelerometer (measures tilt and motion. It is also competent of detecting turning round and motion wave such as swinging or shaking)
o nearness sensors (The iPhone screen blacks out when you put it to your face)
o Electronic scope
o Picture & video ability
o Phone connection and the ability to move faultlessly from browser to phone
o Multi-touch gesticulation support & content whooshing
o World-wide market dispersion
Challenges of Designing for the Mobile Web
When designing for the mobile Web, broad usability and convenience principles for the desktop surroundings still apply:
o Deliver useful and forceful content
o Give functionality and design that fit the user’s context
o Write standards-compliant XHTML and CSS code
o Follow convenience rule
o Use clear and brief language
o Make the site easy to steer
Some of the confront we face with the mobile platform include:
o difference in machine usability
o lesser screen size
o diversity of screen sizes
o many browsers
o Connection speed and dependability
o Lack of peripherals
o Input dissimilarity
o One-handed organize of devices