On my site www.example.com I'm using babel for my two languages which gives me www.example.com & www.example.com/fr/.
My client also wants a mobile version of the site which should have the address: www.example.com/webapp & www.example.com/fr/webapp
I was thinking I have to recreate all the docs under a doc called "webapp" to still keep the FURLs the same way but with webapp in the address first. All the content is the same, the menus are the same, its just the layout that should be different.
So would it be possible to make one document have two templates and use "webapp" in the address to view the correct one?
If not does anyone else have a good suggestion of how I can use webapp in the address like shown above without doing a lot of work?
--
André
-
☆ A M B ☆
- 1,780 Posts
You could try to upsell a responsive design instead of having a completely different "site" in a webapp folder. By the time you redesign for responsive (percentage based) for the webapp view, your main site would remain un-responsive and you'll still have to update twice any time you change a page unless you implement some fancy fetching of resources that I wouldn't want to even dig into messing with. Blech!
In most cases, modifying the current site to responsive would be about as much work and duplicating it and making one responsive while the other remained fixed, if not more work actually. Your client doesn't need to know that, exactly.
The problem with plunking an existing site in with a mobile media query without modifying your existing fixed width divs means that while the site itself would degrade to mobile widths, your content won't react properly to the new mobile width and will look icky. Once you modify the divs for responsive, you may as well use them globally. No need for a subfolder webapp site at that point.
-
☆ A M B ☆
- 1,780 Posts
Maybe you can redirect to a container resource called webapp and apply the modMobile to all child resources. Then use getResources to fetch all your current resources (except the webapp container).
I dunno, sounds like someone dropped the phrase mysite.com/webapp at some dinner party and the client now has tunnel vision. Sounds complicated and bad for SEO if you can't do something similar to the above concept. I suppose you'll make more cashola that way though, as long as you're charging by the hour.
-
☆ A M B ☆
- 24,524 Posts
Indeed. It won't be long until "mobile" versions go the way of table-based layout. It will simply be expected that sites will adapt to the device.
Just yesterday I was in a meeting with a client, and in about two minutes they fell in love with the idea of a responsive conversion of their existing template. It was amusing watching these guys laughing and exclaiming as they re-sized their browsers back and forth.
[ed. note: sottwell last edited this post 13 years, 9 months ago.]
-
☆ A M B ☆
- 1,780 Posts
Unless the webapp is actually a mobile app with dramatically different functionality (i.e. order from menu on the go, disregarding the actual site), IMO there's no reason to have a mobile app. It also severely limits your exposure on mobile devices, these mobile apps. Not much is as frustrating as wanting to view a website, but only being allowed to use the "mobile app" if all you have on hand is your phone. I exit more often than not if I encounter such a thing.
-
☆ A M B ☆
- 1,780 Posts
Quote from: sottwell at Jan 07, 2013, 11:49 AMIndeed. It won't be long until "mobile" versions go the way of table-based layout. It will simply be expected that sites will adapt to the device.
Just yesterday I was in a meeting with a client, and in about two minutes they fell in love with the idea of a responsive conversion of their existing template. It was amusing watching these guys laughing and exclaiming as they re-sized their browsers back and forth.
People seem to love seeing the site re-arrange itself. It is very cool to watch. Even without considering the benefits of not having to duplicate all site edits, the magic seems to sell itself.
☆ A M B ☆
