Earlier this year, I was lucky enough to meet Josh Clark at FOWD. I’d been reading his articles about flagship apps and content first, and I was very keen to have a chat with him about a discussion I’d had with a client. I had been discussing which platform they should be targeting, and depending upon who I was talking to at the client (and their opinions on the goals of the project) the decision on a choice of platform was different.

Josh, and his mobile vs native talk, positioned this decision as an “audience/content/budget” question, which matched the conversations I’d been having with my client. At the end of his talk I said to Josh, “this would make a great flow-chart, like that one that Jessica Hische did!”, “Yeah, that’d be awesome!”, said Josh.

I’m very pleased to say, that after some delay, it’s ready for public consumption.

With a lot of help from my company and colleagues Ed Hartwell-Goose,  Fin Edridge and Simon Dring we made an interactive flow-chart to guide our clients, other industry professionals and their clients through the minefield that is choosing the platform for your app. We called it, “So, you want an app?”.

It’s still a simplification of the whole process but, in researching it, three things became abundantly clear:

1. You must know your audience – there are no exceptions to this. People use different phones for very different things. Blackberries are used by teenagers for BBM and by corporations because of it’s security and low data usage; iPhones are very high-end consumer devices; and Android phones are thought of as being for very technically minded people, but they’re also entry-level smart phones. Picking a platform without knowing what your content and its audience is a recipe for disaster.
2. Your content needs to be simple to access – all end-points on the flow-chart will need some form of content platform behind them to drive engagement, re-use and to keep the app up-to-date. If you’ve got an old CMS, you may have to build a light-weight web service to let your app access the content easily, quickly and efficiently. People use apps to get at content, and whether they’re a game or social media, your content is king.
3. You cannot do this half-heartedly – and by that I mean you’ve got to have a decent budget. Also at FOWD, Matt Gifford was joking that the £50 website was now a £75 website; apps are suffering this problem. Apps are viewed as small, simple bits of functionality that you can knock-up in a weekend; this is simply not true. Apps are often full-sized websites with the added complexity of fitting the core content onto a tiny screen, but since they look small clients think they’re easy to make and do, and are therefore cheap. Stories in the news of 14-year-olds making games in the app store top 10 aren’t helping either. Start with a 5-figure sum, and keep going upwards if you want your app to really succeed.

I also mention PhoneGap a lot in the flow-chart, and that’d because I genuinely believe it’s a great solution to the “discoverability” problem. This is where you have a mobile web site that isn’t getting enough exposure as people think of “apps” as items in the “app store”. PhoneGap fills this hole nicely, and gives you access to device hardware as a brilliant bonus. The tools are easy to use and PhoneGap Build now takes all of the hard bits of building for Blackberry and Windows Phone away.

Still, there are gray areas in the platform selection process, especially when it comes to tight budgets and enterprise apps. If there’s only one thing you take away from this tool it should be this: Content is King, know your audience and how they will use your app. The rest flows from there.

You can find the tool here: www.paconsulting.com/so-you-want-an-app – I’ll post the full poster version here when it’s completed.

Please, let me know what you think, and let me know if you use it for a client as well, share your stories and share the tool with your friends.

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. Handling iPhone App Ideas
2. Easy iPhone Applications
3. Why iPhone Web Apps are Still Worthwhile

There’s one question that I get asked a lot:

I’ve got this great idea for an app…… what do you think?

I run the mobile development team at my employer, a role that I really enjoy and feel privileged to be doing. I get to work with cutting edge technology, forward-thinking clients and brilliant developers and user experience experts. There’s always a flip side, and for this role it is filtering out the bad ideas from the good ones.

The process
I have a simple process for capturing and evaluating ideas: listen, write it down and do a quick estimate of effort and benefits. If the benefits do not heavily outweigh the effort, say thank you and move on.

That’s it in a nutshell, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Lets step through the process.

Ideas
An idea will come from one of two sources:

1. The media, or
2. A personal need

Ideas based in the media
The request goes a bit like this:

Hi Steve, have you seen this article about this cool iPhone/android app? Well, I think we could do something similar (for the other platform)! It’d be great for [publicity/marketing/a demo/this client I have/making lots of money]. What do you think?

If I get a request like this alarm bells start ringing in my head. Clearly, someone else has already done this, and therefore has 3-6 months development time ahead if we were to start developing a rival app. Requests based on the media tend to be for porting android apps to iOS, and unless it’s an android-only developer, there’s likely to be a good reason why there’s no iOS version. Take the BBC 3G strength meter app. It’s only on android and I was asked if we could do an iPhone version. The answer was simply “no”. The long answer was, “do you really think the BBC wouldn’t have tried to make an iOS version? Of course they would have. It’s not possible. iOS doesn’t allow you that level of access to the phone’s hardware.”

The only time that an idea from the media would meet the benefits/effort threshold is if there was a direct client opportunity and the idea came from demand, rather than porting an app. Augmented Reality was a big buzz topic a few years ago, but finding a useful application for it for a client was a challenge, hence I didn’t make an AR app.

So, unless there’s a direct need for an app, it’ll go into my big black book of ideas for a rainy day.

Ideas from personal need
The best ideas for apps come from genuine need. You can quote me on that. When someone comes up to me and says,

I’ve got this problem, I need to …… I thought it could work as an app?

I listen and I’m always much more hopeful. If someone has a need, then you can bet that other people have that need too. It may be something like large manuals or reference information for a specific sport e.g. SCUBA diving, or an app that collects a lot of information together and displays it usefully. These are the kinds of apps that I like people to talk to me about, and that straight away get to the top of the to-do list.

Which app to do first?
This is a tricky question, but it should be one that you can answer. Follow this formula:

Potential audience * USP / effort

1. Your potential audience, on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is “just you” and 10 is “every phone owner”
2. USP (Unique Selling Point) on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is “It’s a twitter app” and 10 is “best idea ever, never been done before, it’ll revolutionise the way we live”
3. Effort is a 1-10 scale of how long it’ll take you to make the USP work (1 is short time, 10 is long time). It is not how long until you can get a first release out, it is how much effort will it take to create the hook for users.

So, for a basic twitter app, you will end up with a formula of 8*1/4 = 2. For an app for flight controllers, you’d get 3*7/7 = 3, so you’d be better-off spending your time on the flight controllers app. Either way, they’re both not very high scores, so you may want to keep looking for better ideas.

Yes, I know it’s a contrived example, and that it won’t apply in every case, but give it a go if you are given a few ideas and don’t know which one to do.

What next?
Once you’ve got your good idea, don’t ignore any other ideas that come your way. Keep writing them down, keep doing the analysis, and you’ll always have an idea in your pocket to fall back upon. You may have so many good ideas that you’ll have to hire some more developers to work on more apps, and that is a very good problem to have.

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. So, you want an app?
2. Why iPhone Web Apps are Still Worthwhile
3. Easy iPhone Applications

It’s Mobile World Congress 2011 this week, and amongst the throngs of Honeycomb tablets, Nokia and Microsoft square dancing on the showroom floor, there are a few announcements that may not be hugely exciting to the general public, but that the tech community should be giggling with glee about.

I’m talking about this:

Kal-El benchmark, courtesy of Anandtech

This is Nvidia announcing the Kal-El SoC (System on Chip), a 12-core Tegra 2 GPU mixed with a quad-core ARM Cortex A9 CPU, all on one chip. Even better yet, this chip will be seen in tablet computers in 6 months time. That’s an incredibly aggressive timeline considering the brand new Tegra 2 chip is only 9 days old, and yet it’s performance has already been doubled.

The even bigger news that has slipped by, is that that’s not all.

Tegra 2 roadmap, courtesy of Anandtech

Notice the scale on the left hand side. Whilst the new chips are rising in a linear fashion, that’s a logarithmic scale, so every year, these chips will double in power. By 2014, we should have SoCs in mobile computers that are 4 times as fast as a Core i7 CPU and 25 times faster than a Core2 Duo. That’s an amazing amount of computational power in a chip the size of a peanut with a TDP of ~1W.

Modern UIs need this power
So what are we going to do with all this power? Whilst it’ll be like having an XBox 360 in your pocket, games aren’t the only thing that will use this power.

Just take a look at Microsoft’s Beauty of the Web demo site, showing off IE9′s hardware acceleration enabling it to make blizzards with HTML5 web technologies. That’s just the start of what we’ll be able to do with this power. Think how useful Honeycomb’s 3D Google maps will be, and think how it can be used to empower a mobile workforce, being able to take your entire desktop with you and have it work like your desktop pc. It will enable the mobile user to process huge data sets which previously would have been a server job, letting the workforce make complex decisions quickly and on the move.

Of course, don’t expect things to change overnight. The first things to happen will be “true” multi-tasking, then a proliferation of HD video including Skype. It’s taken years for web developers to embrace CSS3 functions, it’ll take another few years to truly embrace canvas, SVG and WebGL.

The future vision is coming
At CES 2009, Microsoft showed off a video for their Office of 2019 concept (below). The hardware announced today will drive this forward and enable developers to make these UIs of the future. I can’t wait to be part of this future

Images in this post are from Anandtech.com

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. Dangers of an open mobile OS
2. Is WordPress putting whitespace in your XML? Here’s how to fix it
3. What Would the Best Mobile Web Toolkit Do?

As a developer and iPhone fan, nothing pleases me more to say that Android has caught up with the iPhone. Android hardware has been great for a while, the Motorola Droid and Nexus One being the first in a wave of great devices, but the software hadn’t been right. Android took its sweet time to develop but finally has all the great features iPhone users have enjoyed since the iPhone 3G and more (wi-fi hotspots for example).

Thing is, the iPhone, and iOS, has moved on.

Since the launch of the iPad, every Android-lover has been waiting for a tablet with Android on it. They want the brilliance and openness of Android on a more useful (day-to-day) form factor. To those people, I say wait, it’s not ready yet. In order to put iOS on a tablet, Apple had to fork the code base into two versions, iPhone 3.1 (later 4.0) and iPad 3.2. To date (though that may change at the September 1st event), these two branches have not converged, nearly 9 months later. Apple did this for a very good reason: the native controllers and views are not suitable for tablet devices and new paradigms needed to be created.

The SplitView Navigation controller, necessary for much of the good UI interaction on the iPad. Courtesy of Apple

Android tablets, on the other hand, are content with throwing the same old mobile-centric code at tablets. For example, today Archos unveiled five new Android 2.2 devices from 2.8″ to 10.1″ and Samsung is about to unveil their Galaxy tablet which is a 7″ Froyo device.

So, why isn’t this a good idea. For one, the Android developer API says it doesn’t support screens larger than 4.3″. That should be a pretty good first clue. Take the iPad HCI guidelines for a second clue. It states that full screen transitions are bad, interfaces have to be tailored to the device, and you have to do more than just blow up the interface to twice the size. Take a look at how iPhone apps look on the iPad for that one.

iPhone app on an iPad, now think of an Android app, just blown up.

Truthfully, the current Android SDK just can’t cope with the demands of a tablet UI. Little things like smooth transitions when rotating to big things like having universal apps which cover multiple screen sizes well. Android has support for multiple screen sizes, but it relies on relative positioning for this and is an inelegant solution compared with Apple’s interface builder.

A bigger screen will accentuate the differences in the quality of iOS and Android apps. If you have a mediocre Android app and put it on a tablet, it’s going to look poor, but put a mediocre iPhone app on the iPad, and it’s at least usable. Take a look at this video of a $50 Android tablet from India Do you want a UI like that on your tablet? Didn’t think so.

So, my advice, is wait. Wait until Android 3.0 (Gingerbread) comes out in Q4 this year, then wait until 2011 for some good hardware. 3.0 has set precedent by disallowing vendor customisation, forcing a much-more Apple-esque standard set of controllers which will suit more purposes. Acer and Motorola have already announced that they’re delaying the launch of their Android tablets until 3.0 is available.

Still, when that time comes around, the second generation iPad will be out, and then Android will be playing catch up again.

Update: Just seen the ViewSonic ViewPad 7, a 7″ Froyo tablet. Take a look at the video in the link: it’s full-screen all the way, sluggish and, I quote “a plastic rebadge me-too Android tablet”. When you’re watching the video, think about how that’s going to work on a tablet the size of an iPad (or the Archos 101 for that matter). It’s not going to be pretty.

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. Why tablets aren’t working
2. Why iPhone Web Apps are Still Worthwhile
3. Emily vs the iPad

Over half of the UK population has a mobile phone, and there are 40 million active mobile devices. Of that number, there are about 8 million touch screen devices, with around half of that number being accounted for by the Apple iPhone. More than half of the new handsets being manufactured today have touch screen functionality, though no other single device has had the success of the iPhone.

The reason is partly to do with the Apple brand, but this is second to the iPhone’s well-designed software, specifically the user interface (UI). Interacting with an iPhone is simply a joy and no other device has combined its simplicity and accessibility. How can its design principles be learned upon to produce great touch screen interfaces?

The secret lies in keeping to the four principles of touch screen applications: direct interaction, concise wording, natural input and integrated applications.

The iPhone is a direct interaction device, meaning that all of the input takes place on the screen, not relying on any other hardware keys to support the UI. It uses this direct input mechanism to allow the UI designer to place important navigation and action buttons within the UI in more intuitive places than hardware keys allow. This principle can be leveraged in one simple piece of advice: touch screen input is direct, place buttons in intuitive, easy to reach places for best usability. Because these devices are small, the edges of the screen are always in reach and easy to access, so it makes the ideal place for navigation and essential functions.

It is important to note the difference in the web and web interfaces with touch screen applications. A lot of web sites rely on a pointer hover in order to reveal different or additional navigation options. This is simply not possible with direct input devices as a finger never hovers on the screen, it simply taps. A small paradigm shift is expected from these designers to harness direct input correctly. This does not mean that a web interface cannot function as well on a touch screen device, far from it. The web has to be tailored for direct input. In principle, the web will work just fine on any display, but the screen is a lot smaller on handheld devices and information is either lost of compressed, making the user perform a large number of ‘zoom’ actions to locate the information that is contained within the web page. Making direct input usable can simply be a matter of reducing the zoom operations. Make action buttons big; big enough for a finder to press without having to zoom in. Apple recommends a 40 pixel or larger button to allow for all finger sizes.

All of these lessons on the mobile web show why Apple’s applications have taken off so well; they are simple and concise. None of the apps are overcrowded or even feature word-heavy instructions. This part is key: if a user does not know what to do with a button within the first few seconds then the wrong label has been chosen. It is not that the screen is complicated and needs explanation, if it does then you should think of alternative ways to express that function.

Take, for example, the iPod application. It plays music, but often there is a very long list of music to be displayed; it has to be categorised by artist, album or genre. If the app decided that it wanted to give categorisation choice to the user, it may start with a few buttons asking for a category selection (see diagram).

Instead, it offers the most recognisable selection and then keeps all of the other options available at all times by using a tab bar. This level of functional accessibility paves the way for a golden rule in touch screen menu navigation: all functions must be accessible within three actions. There are no functions in the iPod app that cannot be accessed in more than three screens of data. This is a very important rule for touch screen devices, as many follow the single hardware button principle of the iPhone, giving no permanent button for going back a level of detail (which, as before, is a good thing) then burying functions deep within the menu system, making it very difficult to go from one set of functions to another. Three is the ideal number here as it allows for a good level of data granularity and yet has all top-level functions on two taps away.

There are some exceptional applications, but no exceptions to the rule. If there are circumstances where actions require more then three touches, then those apps need to make use of natural input, an innovative facet of touch screen design. Natural input is performing an action with a motion or gesture which is indistinguishable in the given context. Put into plain English, there can be no other plausible action that can be represented by a given gesture. A perfect example of this is the Photos app on the iPhone. Select an album, where to start, then view the pictures (note: three steps). To view the next picture, push the current one off the screen. Zoom is performed with a pinch and you can rotate pictures by picking up its edges and turning it round. Photos also rotate pictures automatically based on the orientation of the device. There are few better examples of natural input that this.

Applications can be further improved by using natural input. The iPhone’s Maps application, especially when compared to its web-based counterpart, is not the most intuitive application. Sure, it has a good amount of options, uses one finger to pan around the map and two to zoom, but when I want to do anything advanced it falls short. Say I want to know how far Leicester Square is from my office in Victoria. Both locations easily fit on one map, but I have to search for the locations before it drops a pin into the map. A more usable way would be to allow me to drop the pin from the UI, a double-tap would be natural, or dragging a pin from a menu bar and placing it on the map.

Maps can create a route between those two places for me. The route it’s given me takes me along The Mall, but I want to go through Green Park. Attempting to move the route with a drag action (like the web interface) I only succeed in moving the map. There are ways around this, but it is not as easy as it could be and certainly isn’t as natural. The same goes for wanting to move a pin; the functionality is either absent or difficult to use. Improvements here would be very simple and highly effective.

Natural input is very under-used by non-Apple applications, but good use of it can lead to very successful apps, like the excellent Flight Control, where plane flight paths are dragged with a single finger, or the intuitive first-person shooter controls on Wolfenstein 3D.

The final piece of Apple’s puzzle is integration. This has been a large component of all ‘Web 2.0’ applications, the ability to communicate between sites easily, as if you were using the site itself. It is not simply about providing links but providing functionality between applications. This integration is important on touch screen and handheld devices as removing all unnecessary actions and tasks is essential. If an application is able to perform useful tasks with a piece of information, it should not rely on the user to perform that task. For example, the iPhone app Zensify can post pictures to Twitter and Facebook, and does so at the same time without the user having to perform the action for each service.

Creating great touch screen applications can be hard, but sticking to the four design principles, direct interaction, concise wording, natural input and integrated applications, and you’ll be well on your way to making an award-winning app.

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. Tablet usability – the future can’t come soon enough
2. Why iPhone Web Apps are Still Worthwhile
3. Droid Doesn’t do tablets

It seems like making a tablet computer that is efficient, usable and cost-effective, can be quite a difficult proposition. The Joo Joo, a tablet that everyone wants to love is getting none. The Courier will never see daylight. The EeePad is delayed and most surprisingly, the Microsoft lauded HP Slate has been canned.

Only the iPad survives, and you still can’t get one outside of the states. Apple must be delighted that its competitors are falling by the wayside, giving it the whole market to itself.

Why have the others failed? The culprit seems to be a combination of OS, battery life and performance. HP claimed that the Slate, using Windows 7, was not suitable for touch. Its combination with a comparatively power hungry Atom processor meant battery life suffered (3-5 hours reportedly). The Joo Joo suffers from new OS syndrome. Like Android, the first few iterations show promise but stability is lacking and it needs a lot more work. These issues can be resolved, but it needs time and investment.

The Courier is an interesting proposition. Never going past a rendered concept video, its UX and ideas will hopefully make their way into larger screen Windows Mobile 7 implementations.

I believe that this is how tablets should work in real life: a mobile OS on a larger device. They are designed for touch, are low power and can do some remarkable things.

I’m going to be excited when the first Android and WM7 tablets arrive. If, as hoped, the Slate becomes a Web OS device, the market, completely dominated by the iPad, will have competition. The tablet isn’t dead; it’s just been approached in the wrong way. Apple is leading the way as usual, and everyone is playing catch up. They will get there eventually, as they did in the wake of the iPhone. I’m looking forward to the competition.

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. Droid Doesn’t do tablets
2. Apple product roadmap 2010-2011 (prediction)
3. Why iPhone Web Apps are Still Worthwhile

A friend of mine recently bought a HTC HD2, the extra large touch screen Windows Mobile 6.5 phone. He loves it, it’s great for movies and the mobile web, thanks to Opera and other apps built in to the Sense UI.

A friend of his gave him a memory card with a load of programs on it. Whilst on the tube, my friend went through the list and selected a few to install, things like extra dictionaries, radios and the like. By the time he had reached his stop, he couldn’t make phone calls directly from the contacts list, and by the time he was at his front door, text in SMS messages was ten times larger than normal.

This is an issue for “open” operating systems, and especially true for constrained mobile OSs that rely on a small number of core classes. These can have fundamental settings overridden by apps which appear quite innocent at first, but have ramifications across the device if programmed improperly. That’s just the start; all sorts of things can go wrong including the potential for malicious apps to quietly access all of your data and e-mail it to anyone it wishes.

OS makers have now learnt their lessons, sandboxing apps and allowing for limited communication between services using registered links and restricted APIs. This ‘closed’ solution hasn’t limited developers as many expected, most have simply found ways around the solution, often coming up with innovative and novel methods, working with the strengths of the device instead of against each other.

My friend has learnt his lesson too. He’s reset the phone to factory settings and is building the application library up one at a time from trusted sources. He’ll know better next time.

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. USEv4 is Done!
2. Hardware, then UI, will drive mobile forward
3. Why your workforce needs to be mobilised today

This is an opinion piece about Microsoft’s Windows 7 Series phones. The opinions are my own and not that of my employer.

I remember the ‘good old days’. Back in 2004 (at uni) I tried to create a Windows CE program for a little mobile device. My friends and I spent months trying to get it to work (at one point resorting to Java, quickly realising our mistake), and in the end all we could produce was a list of menu items and a few forms. The overall user experience (UX) was horrible and it was slow and unintuitive. That was the standard for Microsoft products of the time.

The turnaround began in 2005 when MS hired their new head if UX for Office, Jenny Lam. Jenny revolutionised the tired Office UI with the ribbon, and hence inspired the Windows 7 UI. A few years later, the Xbox team developed the NXE, based on ideas from the Windows Vista media centre interface, which was leaps and bounds better than the XP MCE UI. This “text focused” design, using Jenny’s Segoe UI typeface found it’s way into he Zune, and came to fruition in the Zune HD. From this, we get the next evolution, the 7 series phone.

With such a clear evolutionary path, it’s hard to see why so many people are surprised by the new phone OS. When the Zune HD launched, people cried out for this UX to be made into a phone. Now that wish has been granted and Apple should be scared.

The 7 series UI is everything that the iPhone is not. It’s got a home screen that displays useful information, with integration into multiple web services out of the box. It’s got cloud-enabled apps, not relying on purpose built sites but working with service leaders. It’s got a calendar that’s useful, and a UI paradigm that is consistent, though, as with the ribbon toolbar, will take some getting used to.

And that’s the thing with MS’s UX strategy. They are now prepared to go out on a limb to try new stuff, even if it may require a learning curve.

We had a question go round the office a few days ago: name a MS app that was rubbish at first, and is now a market leader. We named pretty much every product that MS make (except IE). With 7 series phone, MS have completed their line up. Far from being a dead company to the consumer, Microsoft are still the king of the hill.

Where do MS go from here? The evolution will continue, and although it will seem slow, with product releases every 2-3 years, innovation will continue to flourish. MS will never be a trend setter, and will mostly go their own way, but their way is rarely wrong. I predict that MS still have their best work within, and you would be a fool to ignore them.

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. Joys of MSDN
2. What I Learned at XNA
3. It’s time to upgrade your browser, no, really

Last weekend I was sat on the tube (London underground to international readers), picadilly line to be exact, heading into central London. A young man got on and sat down opposite me. He got out a little ASUS netbook, turned it on and swivelled the lid to use it as a touch screen. “Awesome”, I thought, “he’s got one of those cool touch screen netbooks running Windows 7, I’d love one of those, it’d be so convenient”.

I watched the man use the laptop for a while, tapping at the screen, using two fingers to scroll on a page and it looked ace; it looked simple. Soon, the experience turned sour.

I watched as the man pulled a stylus out from the side of the computer and starts to tap at the screen. I had thought styluses had been banned by international law since the introduction of the iPhone nearly two and a half years ago. Still, if there are some things that can’t use the OS zoom function then maybe a stylus has to be used.

I then received an even greater shock.

I watched in amazement as the man lifted up the screen to try and use the keyboard. Upside down. A control + something command that was not present in the touch screen menu.

Naturally, as a usability practitioner, I was horrified but continued to watch the bloke struggle. It took five stabs and glances back at the screen to confirm the action was successful. By this time, the man looked thoroughly frustrated with his program’s choice of shortcut. Soon after, he packed up his laptop and got off the train.

What appears to be the moral story, is that no matter how advance your OS is, the applications that you run can still scupper the experience, especially with tablets. There are two solutions to this problem:

1. The iPhone way – touch is the only interaction option. No legacy apps are allowed. It’s an OS designed for touch and for touch only.
2. The full screen keyboard way – Windows 7 may have a good touch screen keyboard, but it isn’t implemented in all apps (the iPhone way). You would need a true full-screen multi-touch keyboard, adaptable to different screen sizes, to make it function correctly.

Hopefully there’s a third way, the Apple tablet way. We’ll wait and see about that…

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. Why your workforce needs to be mobilised today
2. The Future of the Wave
3. The Death of the Netbook

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’m planning a mobile web toolkit to replace iUI, but what would you want in it that’s not in iUI already? Should is work across all browsers, even Pocket IE and that godawful Blackberry Web Browser? Should it use progressive enhancement all over the shop or just create a new version for each browser? Should it focus on touch screens or is clicking important too?

Put your thoughts in the comments!

If you liked this, you may also like:

1. Why iPhone Web Apps are Still Worthwhile
2. Patching iUI
3. Dangers of an open mobile OS