First things first — I need to choose a route to the mobile web and I have identified three options to discuss, each tangent with its own merits.
1. Choose my mTLD from dotMobi, e.g. mobile-seo.mobi
2. Add a subdomain to the existing root, e.g. mobi.mobile-seo.co.uk
3. Use CSS to support mobile pages from www.mobile-seo.co.uk
Let’s discuss.
Some might say that Option 1 [ dot mobi domain ] would allow me to affectively label my site as mobile compatible.
“dotMobi is designed to guide mobile users to made-for-mobile internet content and services that can be accessed with ease and confidence”
Unfortunatley I still believe that there’s a stigma surrounding newer TLD’s — where the uptake has been minimal. Consumers are just more damn comfortable with dot com / dot co uk domains. Additionally dot mobi does not automatically equal standards compliant and mobile friendly.
Option 2 [ mobi subdomain ] also begs a separate site build — which you could argue will give me more control over coding pages aimed at ranking in mobile search. Faced with managing two sites, I could look to save time by promoting just one URL [ most likely www ] — by identifying mobile User Agents and subsequently landing those visitors on my mobile pages. However, despite some advantages, my marketing head still doesn’t sit comfortably with this ‘double life’ effect on any future brand.
Although still requiring browser string detection, Option 3 [ alternative CSS on www ] would also allow me to deliver content designed for mobile screens — single column, lightweight, with intuitive navigation — at the same time satisfying my single mindedness.
So what of WAP I here you ask, for here lies a debate. Undoubtedly WAP will get left behind as more and more mobile devices ship with xHTML compliant browsers. But should mobile developers cater for older handsets in the meantime?
To answer that question my vote goes partly to Option 2, where I propose to use a separate subdomain to cover WAP [ wap.mobile-seo.co.uk ] — something I can discontinue later — but mostly my vote goes to Option 3.
I’ve made this choice, contradictory to some opinions, because I believe that consumers want access to the same world-wide web — whatever environment they happen to find themselves in; social, professional, at the desk, or on the move. And I also believe that influential brands will not dilute their online presence with alternate mobile URLs but will strive to understand how to deliver the mobile experience.
In Step 2 — I shall be discussing mobile browser detection.
Comments 1
Iam using both versions, 2 and 3. Whenever possible I host the mobile applications under the same domain with the same directory structure. For blogs etc this is pretty ease. For larger projects where we use Sevenval FIT to mobilize the site, we need a subdomain like m.domain.tld or wap.domain.tld because the mobile version is a completely different host. Anyways, I’d always prefer the “all-sites-under-one-domain” solution
02 Apr 2008Post a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.