[RFC] Responsive layout

These requests for comments/change have lead to an implemented feature that has been successfully merged into the 3.1/Ascraeus branch. Everything listed in this forum will be available in phpBB 3.1.
Post Reply
User avatar
callumacrae
Infrastructure Team
Infrastructure Team
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by callumacrae » Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:57 pm

Arty wrote:
Oleg wrote:"First page load" should be fast. Waiting 10 minutes for the first page to load is not acceptable.
10 minutes? We are not in last century, mobile connections are very fast. It takes 5-6 seconds for me to load first page on my phone without cache, 2-3 seconds for subsequent pages, which is similar to speed I get on my computer.
But you have to remember, a fair chunk of the world still *is* in last century (well, maybe just decade)!
Made by developers, for developers!
My blog

User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by Pony99CA » Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:42 pm

It sounds like Oleg doesn't think that a "responsive" layout would be, er, responsive. ;)

Seriously, sometimes software drives people to get new hardware. This seems especially prevalent in the gaming world, where the latest hot game only runs in full capability with the latest and greatest hardware, but it also happens in normal consumer devices. For example, how many consumers actually upgrade Windows compared to just buying a new PC with the latest version of Windows pre-installed?

Mobile devices aren't necessarily intended to be total PC replacements. While it's great if we can make the mobile user experience better, is having a separate (mobile) style to maintain worth it if a responsive style works passabily well on mobile devices?

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.

Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by Oleg » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:32 am

Just about anything works "passably well" if the user is prepared to wait long enough. Specifically, all forums I've seen work "passably well" given more than one bar on my phone. "Passably well" is a pretty poor benchmark to be striving for however.

User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by Pony99CA » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:09 am

"Passably well" obviously doesn't mean "infinitely long" (do I really have to say that?). There's an implied user satisfaction level there, but I don't know where that bar should be set -- 1 second, 10 seconds, 1 minute?

Or, looked at another way, it would meet some large percentage (50% < x <= 100%) of users' maximum waiting time. So, using the 80/20 guideline, if 20% or less of phpBB mobile users were happy with the responsive layout's performance, that would be "passable".

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.

Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by Oleg » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:33 am

You really can't look at it that way in my opinion. There is a continuous spectrum from claimed broadband all the way down to one bar in the middle of nowhere. Thus for a mobile style I would like to see everything unnecessary taken out. Or, at the very least, first load all content and navigation links to the point of being readable and usable respectively, then load 100 kb of javascript and then load corners and shadows and such.

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by MichaelC » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:07 pm

Pony99CA wrote:It sounds like Oleg doesn't think that a "responsive" layout would be, er, responsive. ;)

Seriously, sometimes software drives people to get new hardware. This seems especially prevalent in the gaming world, where the latest hot game only runs in full capability with the latest and greatest hardware, but it also happens in normal consumer devices. For example, how many consumers actually upgrade Windows compared to just buying a new PC with the latest version of Windows pre-installed?

Mobile devices aren't necessarily intended to be total PC replacements. While it's great if we can make the mobile user experience better, is having a separate (mobile) style to maintain worth it if a responsive style works passabily well on mobile devices?

Steve
When the team discussed this for the website some rough benchmarks were done and the responsive layout took almost 2x as long as the purpose built style. Prosilver as-is took around 2x the responsive design. Now on fast connections this is a matter of maybe 3 seconds. But on slower connections (which still exists, especially mobile connections which is the point of this), that can make quite a large difference.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by EXreaction » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:13 pm

Is that because of rendering time or loading time?

User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by Pony99CA » Tue Sep 18, 2012 8:53 pm

Oleg wrote:You really can't look at it that way in my opinion. There is a continuous spectrum from claimed broadband all the way down to one bar in the middle of nowhere.
True, but ultimate judge of whether performance is acceptable is the user -- and every user has different opinions. That's why we should find out what the level is first and then decide whether a responsive layout meets that.

For the PC-based Web, there are statistics on when a user gives up and clicks away from the site. I haven't seen any for mobile users, though. (They probably exist -- I just haven't seen them.)
Oleg wrote:Thus for a mobile style I would like to see everything unnecessary taken out. Or, at the very least, first load all content and navigation links to the point of being readable and usable respectively, then load 100 kb of javascript and then load corners and shadows and such.
Delaying loading the "baggage" seems like a good idea, even for the PC. That could be done for Prosilver or a responsive design, too, right?
Unknown Bliss wrote:When the team discussed this for the website some rough benchmarks were done and the responsive layout took almost 2x as long as the purpose built style. Prosilver as-is took around 2x the responsive design.
If the responsive layout looked like ProSilver, I'm surprised about that. Did the responsive design look much different?
Unknown Bliss wrote:Now on fast connections this is a matter of maybe 3 seconds. But on slower connections (which still exists, especially mobile connections which is the point of this), that can make quite a large difference.
Again, "large difference" depends on what the user is willing to accept. If the mobile design loads in 15 seconds and the responsive design loads in 30, that's not a huge deal IMHO. There's probably some threshold where the mobile layout will be acceptable and the responsive layout won't, but how big is that window and how many users would actually experience it?

For example, if the threshold is 1 minute, then the mobile layout time (t) would be acceptable when the responsive layout wouldn't be when 30 <= t < 60. So there are 30 seconds when both are acceptable, 30 seconds when only the mobile layout is and everything else is unnacceptable for both. Are those 30 seconds worth maintaining another style for? (I don't know -- I'm just asking the question.)

Doing a mobile style for phpBB.com might make sense, because you'd be the only ones administering and maintaining it (and you don't generally use MODs, so that helps, too). However, if there are standard and mobile styles, would MOD authors have to support both? I think that MODs authors should have to support every style that phpBB ships with (yes, that includes SubSilver, and I think that's a big mistake in phpBB 3.0). So fewer styles means easier MODding.

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.

User avatar
MichaelC
Development Team
Development Team
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by MichaelC » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:46 pm

30s is unacceptable?

And maintaining a mobile style wouldn't be much work as it wouldn't need every phpBB feature; Only the most important ones - you simply can't fit everything in on a screen that small. In that respect, because its purpose built for a smaller phone it can be designed so that it does not need nearly as much room (different things in different places) it could support more features better than something responsive. And maintaining a responsive style would be harder as it would be a consideration for every single little change.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
callumacrae
Infrastructure Team
Infrastructure Team
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:37 am
Location: England
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Reponsive layout

Post by callumacrae » Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:42 am

EXreaction wrote:Is that because of rendering time or loading time?
Loading. I did the tests over a mobile connection, but using a laptop (my phone doesn't tell me exact loading times).
Made by developers, for developers!
My blog

Post Reply