×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Mobile: Now For Tablets As Well As Phones

timothy posted about a year ago | from the ensmallening dept.

Handhelds 123

Gaurav Kuchhal (Head of Product, Slashdot) writes "Slashdot Mobile has finally made it out of the gates for tablets as well as phones. The Mobile site for phones launched some weeks back, but now you can take advantage of the changes we've made to read Slashdot easier to read through touch-screen devices on tablets as well as phones. That includes features we've folded in to the mobile version from the desktop-browser view of the site, so you can scan user profiles, sip from the Firehose, and keep up with notifications. See this blog post for more details, and keep the feedback coming. If you see a problem, please tell us about it!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

123 comments

CAn'T GET ENOUGH OF YOUR LOVE BABY !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107735)

Sing it, Barry !!

Just tried it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108309)

Just tried it. It still sucks. Going back to reddit...

Re:Just tried it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42110241)

Going back to a place that has metric tons more suck?

what loser reads reddit? It's a bad copy of slashdot.

Nice work (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107737)

FP> Glad to see you's guys finally going mobile. Keep up the good work!

any chance of getting those in the reg. version? (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#42107755)

Some of those features seem pretty useful, especially notification of replies. Will they be added to the regular, non-mobile/tablet version of the website as well?

Re:any chance of getting those in the reg. version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107857)

You want notification of replies? What's wrong with polling your profile page?

Re:any chance of getting those in the reg. version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107977)

You want them to change the interface? Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

Re:any chance of getting those in the reg. version (-1, Redundant)

gullfaraz (2771281) | about a year ago | (#42108511)

Exactly this. I don't EVER want to see a mobile version of any website on my tablet. And yet far too many websites refuse to give me the full site no matter what I click, ignoring the flag in my browser for "request desktop version" and not having anything of their own I can click to get there. I have never seen a site that works better on my tablet in mobile version than full, but I have seen many sites refuse to let me even try the full version. Additionally, my phone is now in the same range, I only want the desktop version on it too. again, not an option on many sites. http://www.readenews.com/2012/11/samsung-galaxy-note-ii-sales-hit-5.html [readenews.com]

Re:any chance of getting those in the reg. version (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#42108897)

Some of those features seem pretty useful, especially notification of replies. Will they be added to the regular, non-mobile/tablet version of the website as well?

It's already there and has been for quite a long time. Go turn it on in your settings.

Question (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107807)

Serious question. Why did you create a separate web site rather than just use a different stylesheet with the "handheld" css media type?

Re:Question (4, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#42107941)

Serious question. Why did you create a separate web site rather than just use a different stylesheet with the "handheld" css media type?

because they're realistic? name one complex forum type of site for which the different stylesheet approach works?

this saves memory on the handheld sites - or at least makes it simpler for deciding which javascript to load to make the site function(and in which way).
or at least should.

(mobile browsers have different quirks and so forth.. and it's good if you can have the option of deciding which to go to. also some tablets run desktop os's and browsers..)

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107945)

Second serious question: why is this site's code so shitty that, when I browse with a desktop browser like Chrome, I sometimes get:

a) The mobile version, without any way to switch it back to fullscreen
b) The mobile version, with the control to switch it back to fullscreen
c) The normal fullscreen version

Nothing more aggravating than getting (a) above and being forced to browse at Score: 5, Full Groupthink Mode

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107975)

Because they've been doing that for at least the last THREE YEARS with a score filter slider that DOESN'T WORK on Android.

And just to make it worse, the "Full Screen" switch at the bottom of the page doesn't work either.

Takes 3 Years to make website usable on tablets (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107869)

You fucking suck at running a website, slashdot. Your users are a bunch of fucking clowns.

Only a company like Dice, laughing stock of the tech world, would be interested in this shit festival.

I like the palm version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107881)

I still use the palm version on my smartphone. I have tried the mbeta, but is apparently buggy. The palm version has an added benefit of showing only the top 5 comments, which saves me a lot of time.

The food is terrible and the portions are small (-1, Troll)

rhizome (115711) | about a year ago | (#42107901)

Bad design for all of your devices!

Slashdot is by far the most difficult website to read and comment on. Read a story you'd like to contribute your voice to? I hope you're logged in, because if you're logged out you may not be able to find the story again once you log in. Have typing skills? "Slow down, cowboy!"

Slashdot has the worst NIH syndrome when it comes to best practices, no wonder they wanted to be sold off. There is nothing here that isn't done better everywhere else, and even the community has suffered thereby. I only keep them in my RSS out of laziness.

Re:The food is terrible and the portions are small (1)

andrewa (18630) | about a year ago | (#42108187)

Read a story you'd like to contribute your voice to? I hope you're logged in, because if you're logged out you may not be able to find the story again once you log in.

I think you just described Reddit, and perhaps most other forum sites too...

Re:The food is terrible and the portions are small (1)

darjen (879890) | about a year ago | (#42108907)

So why not just log in under a new tab? Your browser session will then transfer over to the other tab. Or am I missing something?

Re:The food is terrible and the portions are small (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#42110269)

Slashdot is by far the most difficult website to read and comment on.

You need to go look at the Gawker Media sites. Those are designed by retorted baboons with a penchant for pain.

Does not work without javascript (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107919)

Nice design.. but does not work wihout javascript enabled.

Re:Does not work without javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108337)

so? quit being paranoid, enable javascript, and welcome to 2012.

Re:Does not work without javascript (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#42108547)

Why enable it if it isn't necessary? Slashdot is a nerd site so cater to the needs of nerds.

Re:Does not work without javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109117)

why don't nerds need javascript? TONS of sites use it to very nice effect these days, and there's no reason to disable (don't give me the security line, any nerd worth their salt knows how to avoid any problems having javascript enabled might cause, especially since browsers are pretty good at detecting scripting attacks). get over yourself and turn it on.

Re:Does not work without javascript (2)

BenoitRen (998927) | about a year ago | (#42109411)

Nerds don't need JavaScript because more often than not it's used for dumb, shiny and annoying features and ads which together just slow down the loading and viewing of the website.

Unfortunately, there's an increasing number of websites where basic features like search don't even work anymore without JavaScript. Graceful degradation seems to be a thing from the past.

Re:Does not work without javascript (1)

WillKemp (1338605) | about a year ago | (#42110685)

Weirdly there's a growing number of web sites that don't work on a teletype any more, too.

Re:Does not work without javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42111387)

Weirdly a nerd on a news for nerds site doesn't understand why a website should function with or without Javascript.

If you want to make sites that only function properly with Javascript, you have to accept that there will be ~1% of people that won't use your site. If this bothers you or your client, I suggest you learn how to use graceful degradation.

If you don't aim for 100% compatibility of your sites, then you ren't a web developer, or at least not a very good one.

Re:Does not work without javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42111817)

uh, really? what if you just don't care about the minuscule amount of people who turn off javascript for whatever insane reason? clearly it doesn't hurt most news sites' bottom lines, so as a web developer i'm not worried either. javascript is the most supported language across computers worldwide.

sorry, but i just don't care about a cluster of paranoid nerds who think javascript is somehow harmful to them, or ancient machines that somehow lack a browser with js support. that's just the way it goes.

Re:Does not work without javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42111389)

you're wrong though. you're talking like it's still 2004 or something. with all the nice libraries out there practically every site i visit has leaned how to use javascript properly, and guess what? it's great! more superficially, ajax is great when used right. slashdot uses it well, for example, despite what the small group of detractors might say. javascript enables sites to do MANY thing that simply CAN'T be done with pure html/css, and that's a GOOD thing. how do people not realize this? what sites do you visit that are so horribly crippled by javascript like you imply?

Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42107927)

My tablet has higher resolution than many laptops sold today, so I'm not interested in a different layout.

Regardless, I'd like to choose whether the mobile or normal layout is shown.

Re:Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (4, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | about a year ago | (#42108107)

Exactly this. I don't EVER want to see a mobile version of any website on my tablet. And yet far too many websites refuse to give me the full site no matter what I click, ignoring the flag in my browser for "request desktop version" and not having anything of their own I can click to get there.

I have never seen a site that works better on my tablet in mobile version than full, but I have seen many sites refuse to let me even try the full version.

Additionally, my phone is now in the same range, I only want the desktop version on it too. again, not an option on many sites.

Re:Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (1)

steveg (55825) | about a year ago | (#42108421)

Yes, yes, yes.

And even on my phone which is *not* in that range, no mobile site I've ever seen works well. There is always too much loss of funtionality. I'm willing to scroll around on the desktop site, even if I'm doing so through a tiny porthole. If you're going to force your mobile site on me, then I'll just leave. Give me a way to turn the damned thing off.

To be fair, Slashdot hasn't forced it on us yet. When I go to http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] on my phone, I get the real site, not the mobile one. Lets hope it stays that way.

Re:Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (2, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#42109977)

The only major problems I'm aware of with the full version of Slashdot on mobile devices are the ratings slider (which could be trivially fixed by adding support for touch events or by providing an alternative set of up-down arrow controls for the two values that appear only on mobile devices via CSS trickery) and the fact that the minimum column width is too damn wide for viewing on a phone, so you end up scrolling back and forth (which again could be trivially fixed with CSS by adding the various -*-text-size-adjust CSS properties). Incidentally, that second part is a pain in the backside on high-resolution laptops, too, because of the way scaling works in most browsers.

It would, of course, make sense to load fewer items initially on mobile devices, for performance reasons, and there are probably a bunch of other minor behavioral tweaks, but none of those sorts of changes requires a separate site, or even anything approaching a separate site. In fact, if done correctly, those sorts of differences should be entirely transparent to the user up until the user hits the magic point where it can't scroll any further until after it loads more data.

In short, most of the time, the only reason for needing a mobile version of a website is that the CSS and JavaScript designers/coders made poor design decisions in the first place. Thus, in most cases, the enhancements that improve usability on the mobile site would also improve usability on the full site for folks with less-than-perfect vision or too-high-resolution screens, and the enhancements that remove functionality on the mobile site just piss people off. The exceptions are few and far between, and by that, I mean that I can't think of any, but I'm willing to accept that in theory, one or two might exist somewhere in the world.

Re:Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (1)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | about a year ago | (#42108429)

I occasionally have problems with getting the desktop version of various sites to load. Whenever my default browser can't manage it, Opera Mobile has a change user agent setting that seems to actually work.

Re:Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (2)

dargaud (518470) | about a year ago | (#42108719)

Android browsers normally have a settable user agent. But the setting depends on the device. On my Galaxy SII you go to about:useragent to access it. Google it up.

Re:Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#42108725)

Exactly this. I don't EVER want to see a mobile version of any website on my tablet. And yet far too many websites refuse to give me the full site no matter what I click

Amen to that.

I can't tell you how annoying it is to follow a link that says "redirecting to our mobile site", which then dumps you at the main page without attempting to get you where you wanted and no way to get to it.

If you can't give me the content I was looking for, and give me at least as good as what I'd have gotten from the normal page ... don't try to be a clever guy and redirect me to an un-usable mobile site. I wasn't looking for your front page, I was looking for something specific that I already have a link to.

I have yet to be directed to a mobile site which actually works.

Re:Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (1)

Moxon (139555) | about a year ago | (#42109105)

Oh, yes, I'm so tired of that. ..and the mbeta site is weirdly proportioned on my galaxy tab. Looks like I'm getting the "ancient nokia" version stretched to fill a 10 inch screen. Just gimme the desktop site already.

Re:Tablet is HIGHER resolution than many laptops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109735)

God yes. Listen to this man.

Good work! (4, Interesting)

sootman (158191) | about a year ago | (#42107933)

Sincerely. Even though I still use this system [pixelcity.com] that I banged together a few years ago (more info here [pixelcity.com] ), the new mbeta page looks really nice.

Missing important feature (5, Funny)

lucm (889690) | about a year ago | (#42107943)

How come there is no tiles? Give us tiles!

slow and clumsy (5, Insightful)

godrik (1287354) | about a year ago | (#42107959)

I just tried on my htc desire with cianogene mod. It is much slower than the "original" version. I need to click a link to read the summary, which completely defeat the purpose of having a homepage. If I want to click the stories I want to read, i'd use an RSS feed reader not slashdot home page.

I won't use it.

Does not work on Windows Phone (1)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | about a year ago | (#42107985)

I know you guys hate Windows, but come on. The emulator app is free, this one isn't hard.

Re:Does not work on Windows Phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108127)

Page won't load at all... I'm a little disappointed especially since slashdot is known for preaching interoperability. Very disappointing.

Re:Does not work on Windows Phone (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#42108441)

Free isn't as important open.

Re:Does not work on Windows Phone (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#42108899)

Free isn't as important open.

For some people. Not everybody is as politically interested in libre software -- no matter what the great bearded one thinks.

For many people, free is all they care about.

Re:Does not work on Windows Phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108807)

Not working on my HTC 8x Windows 8 device :(. Given other comments, I don't really care. The m.slashdot.org website works just fine.

Re:Does not work on Windows Phone (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#42109135)

Don't work in my Nokia N9, and Meego is one the closest things you have right now of a full mobile linux experience. Not tried in the N900, but in that case would be even worse.

So no, is not anti-Windows phone bias, don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

tiny useless summaries (4, Insightful)

kunwon1 (795332) | about a year ago | (#42108017)

give us the full summary of every article on the index page, or this is completely useless. if i have to click on and then wait for the loading of every individual story just to get summaries, there's no way i'll use the mobile site.

Re:tiny useless summaries (5, Insightful)

kunwon1 (795332) | about a year ago | (#42108037)

further, don't break the back button with your ajax crap. if i 'load more articles' seven times then click on one of the articles, then press the back button, i shouldn't have to press the 'load more articles' button seven more times to get back to my place.

Re:tiny useless summaries (1)

dargaud (518470) | about a year ago | (#42108855)

Who reads the summaries anyway ? It's /. 2.0, so jump into the fray and start commenting after not only having not read the article, but neither the summary !

Make the back button work (1)

Sowelu (713889) | about a year ago | (#42108093)

The 'load more articles' is hideously slow on phones, especially when low bandwidth is available. Using the web standard back button, the 'more articles' disappear. Also, a LOT of mobile devices like to de-cache tabs when they haven't been touched in as little as half a minute depending on other activity. This also wrecks the 'more articles'. All I ask for is a way to load each clump of articles on its own page, instead of cramming them all onto one page and making me click a button...wait...click a button...wait...wonder if my phone is even loading it...

FIX YOUR SITE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108131)

Ever since you've implemented the mobile site, I've been randomly getting shown to the mobile version of article pages.
It takes anywhere from 1 to 50 reloads to make it go back to normal.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.20 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/25.0.1335.0 Safari/537.20

Bad placement (1)

mcspoo (933106) | about a year ago | (#42108171)

Hugely annoying ad "The HTML 5 Center" across the top looks more like a header or a mistake in the template than an ad...

Select Comment Score Threshold (2)

jeffy210 (214759) | about a year ago | (#42108177)

I like the new mobile site it is very clean, but the biggest problem I have is you can't select your comment score threshold. I like to browse from 2 to 4 depending on the number of comments I get back, but the "Top Rated" link doesn't give me as good of control over what I want to see at the time and quite often I'll get 1's in there.

My only other issue is that it is *very* touchy and sometimes trying to grab the screen to scroll gets interpreted as a tap and it loads up the article.

Other than that, great job guys!

Please (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year ago | (#42108219)

Fix commenting in the mobile environment before releasing new stuff. If you have to edit something it's unadulterated pure frustration.

Now this page is stuck in mobile view on my deskto (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108223)

I lied earlier, most of the time it switches to the mobile version and doesn't change back.
After posting my previous comment, I reloaded this page and am now stuck on the mobile version. I view other articles and they are the desktop version. I view this page in Firefox instead of Chromium and I still get the mobile version. WTF?

Re:Now this page is stuck in mobile view on my des (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108343)

Now it is back to normal...

To add, there are no proxies caching anything on my internet connection and this is the only device using it.

Many mobile browsers not supported? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108305)

Opera Mobile and Firefox Mobile (and Firefox Mobile Beta) are not supported? Really? I thought it was a generic warning, but that fucking abortion of a mobile site actually does not work with these browsers. The main page loads, but tapping on a story or the comments icon (assuming it is clickable) does nothing . Stock Android browsers seems to work well, so yay?

I submitted feedback re: this 2-3 weeks ago.

Bad Detection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108313)

Anyone else having a problem with the Mobile view here you get put into it for no reason? Also, it looks like they remove the option to LEAVE mobile mode so the only way to get to Fullscreen is to refresh the page repeatedly until you get the view you want?

It's Official, Slashdot is now a "Product" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108325)

We miss you, Taco.

scroll lag. (1)

plebeian (910665) | about a year ago | (#42108427)

The beta looks decent but on the nexus 10 there is a noticeable lag when scrolling which is not there on the full site. I would think that a mobile optimized site would be more responsive and not less.

a mobile site should support "mobile devices"... (1)

golem100 (581505) | about a year ago | (#42108435)

Basically non-functional on either my phone or the Android Tablet I am current developing on:

Android 2.3 & 4.0 w/ current Opera for Android.

This is a rough crowd--would be nice if a "Mobile Site" would work with a pair of pretty vanilla "Mobile Devices".

Maybe Slashdot needs a QA department?

I hope that does not mean (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#42108439)

That if I load Slashdot on a phone / tablet that it'll helpfully ask if I want to download the app instead. Every single time, or even at random. I wonder if sites know how fucking annoying it is to be asked this question repeatedly.

How quaint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108487)

Oh, you use a sub-domain for your mobile site? And your "tablet" interface is the same as your mobile interface? And it's styled like an iOS app?

Isn't that cute. It's like I just woke up in 2009.

Ah well, Slashdot has never been known for being state-of-the-art.

Re:How quaint (2)

Sowelu (713889) | about a year ago | (#42108533)

Ah well, Slashdot has never been known for being state-of-the-art.

God, I wish it would stop trying. Plain old HTML works on every device.

Ummm (1)

EGSonikku (519478) | about a year ago | (#42108555)

Does it load a different interface dependent on device! Or doesn't look the same across all? If so, it's a very very iOS looking design, at leas the top menus. Just strange for a site that Rae's against Apple so much...

Thank you. Feeling like 1999 again (1)

anynicknameavailable (901735) | about a year ago | (#42108597)

Opera mini doesn't work. Standard browser is slow on reasonably new phone (dual core 1.2Ghz with Android 4). But with hours of tweaking, I am sure I can find a solution to read text somewhat comfortably on a screen (yes LCD, not CRT, modern stuff). A site for nerds with time on their hands. Feeling young again... I am underwhelmed.

Already got the spam ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#42108605)

Already got the email from Slashdot ... and getting email from Slashdot is kinda new, especially since it's coming from a 3rd party (elabs10.com).

And I'm not sure I especially like a Slashdot which emails me such things through a mass-mail host. Especially one which has apparently been blacklisted as a spammer. I'm pretty sure I never told Slashdot they could do that.

Maybe "Dice Holdings" are becoming asshats?

Ugh. (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | about a year ago | (#42108611)

Why would you post this today? Sometime last week you updated the mobile code and broke scrolling. Seriously. On the Android 4 browser you can now basically no longer properly scroll the mbeta.slashdot.org site. It's like it's eating touch and/or scroll events for lunch. You clearly tried to fix this, because you can now fling again, but if you are in contact with the touchscreen, the site stops scrolling within a second or so. This problem was not present a week or two ago. Very, horrifically annoying. Showstopper bug. Go fix it, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

The other annoying thing - the horrifically slow and error prone paging between stories. And stop trying to intercept swipe events on comments - I'm not trying to switch stories, I'm generally trying to click something to expand/reply/etc. But it's even worse because the story switching is so horribly slow, and has no "loading..." or other user feedback.

Basically, go work on this for another month or so then let us know when it's fixed.

Blank page (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#42108643)

Going to mbeta.slashdot.org on my Nokia N900 results in a blank page. The regular site works well when browsing with Midori and Firefox. What am I missing here?

Re:Blank page (1)

kiddailey (165202) | about a year ago | (#42109533)

Blank for me on my iPhone as well. And can't click anything but the ads when I try to load this in Chrome. Doesn't seem to be beta quality yet.

PROTIP: You're not a geek, if you use a tablet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108697)

End of story.
Doubly so, if it has an "i" at the beginning of its name.
And if you dare mentioning Windows Phone/8, you shall be sacrificed on a VAX, and your blood be drained for your sins, to be used as cooling liquid.

Nothing different on my iPad (1)

Known Nutter (988758) | about a year ago | (#42108775)

nothing different on iPad compared to the regular site... except, the OBNOXIOUS pop-up banner ad thing at the bottom.

Seriously? Thanks for that.

Re:Nothing different on my iPad (1)

Known Nutter (988758) | about a year ago | (#42108847)

hate to reply to self, but just found out that you have to click the mbeta link to see it on iPad... I assumed it would pick up the agent and redirect since the summary says "launched."

I probably don't understand what "launched" means, though.

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42108785)

aapRoximately 90%

Device not supported (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about a year ago | (#42109037)

Please add blackberry playbook to the devices that are supported. It's the same webkit browser everyone else is using (though with better compliance scores in many cases), and it works just fine when I click 'let me in anyway'.

Why doesn't it look like Slashdot? (2)

Paul Slocum (598127) | about a year ago | (#42109269)

The mobile site has a dramatically different style than the Slashdot website. It doesn't have the same color scheme, fonts, layout, or any stylistic element in common that I can find. I realize this is a beta and this is Slashdot, but I thought it was pretty standard to start working on the look of a website before beta stage?

Re:Why doesn't it look like Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42111297)

Where you expecting ponies?

Scroll gets interpreted as a click (1)

harmic (856749) | about a year ago | (#42109275)

In most respects the mobile interface is great, but one thing kills it for me. I simply cannot scroll on the front (story list) page. Every attempt to scroll gets interpreted as a click. Very annoying, almost unusable. I'm using a Samsung S3, Android 4.1.1.

Why? (1)

pbjones (315127) | about a year ago | (#42109329)

I haven no trouble with the main site on my tablet, so you must be pandering to those people who bought sub standard tablets with low resolution screens who think that all tablets are the 'same'. /sarcasm

Looks good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109503)

Looks good, and a definite step in the right direction.

Only comment would be it needs to look more like the main slashdot site theme / colour scheme wise to really blend in as part of the site family here.

DT

Next Up: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109635)

Slashdot Mobile: Now for Desktop!

Why not create a dedicated Site App (1)

h2okies (1203490) | about a year ago | (#42109789)

The mobile site is god awful slow and laggy where by a dedicated app would probably solve this much like XDA's portal application to access their forums. /. could have or should have had one by now....

Re:Why not create a dedicated Site App (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#42110115)

slashdot can barely make a functioning AJAX and CSS for desktop PCs (and it's still slow and css breaks in some browsers)... you want them to make an iOS app that works in different resolutions for iphone5, iphone 4, ipad 1/2/mini, ipad 3/4, and then an Android app that works for the umpteen hordes of different Android versions and devices, and a third one for Windows 8 RT and Windows Surface Pro, and Windows Phone 8, all without sucking balls?

You ask too much.

Doesn't work on windows phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42109879)

It just gives me a message saying it's not supported. Browser agent sniffing is a terrible practice. Instead, you should check what features are available. There's a bajillion articles [bing.com] out there that will tell you the same thing.

Yay... WAP all over again (1)

MouseR (3264) | about a year ago | (#42109883)

Great. Another web site dumbing down the internet.

Please make it optional. My iOS client can view regular web site just fine thank you. And I can zoom into it as required.

Geez.

Might as well go back to the WAP days...

Not designed for Phablets? (1)

abhikhurana (325468) | about a year ago | (#42110137)

Posting from Nexus 7 and here is what it looks like in portrait mode. Basically more than half the screen stays empty. What tablets did you test it with, besides iPad?
Screenshot [imgur.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...