Virtual Mechanics: Community Forums and FAQs
Virtual Mechanics: Community Forums and FAQs
Animation / Mobile
Mobile Design Question|
Go
![]() |
New
![]() |
Find
![]() |
Notify
![]() |
Tools
![]() |
Reply
![]() |
|
|
Working Mechanic |
One more item... I don't know how helpful this is to SiteSpinner Pro but if you go to this site: http://mr.dev.mobi/launch.jsp?locale=en_EN and enter my test url of (www.consultyou.net/mobi_c) it will look at and test the page. The results are interesting.
Finally, I have another test site at http://www.consultyou.net/mobi_d that was built with an online mobile site builder. That site displays properly in all of the mobile simulators I've posted in this thread. The problem is that online tool only has a small selection of templates and is a bit too "cookie cutter." I've posted those files if anyone would like to look at them to see what they are doing...located at http://www.consultyou.net/ft2.php User: user Password: admin Maybe someone can something usefull that can be applied to SiteSpinner Pro. Thanks This message has been edited. Last edited by: torweb, |
|||
|
VM Staff![]() |
Thanks torweb,
You can achieve something like you see in your mobi_d example by turning of CSS positioning. To do that, for each of your 3 objects, right-click and choose Object editor. In the ‘Transformations’ tab, check the ‘No CSS Positioning’ checkbox. Press OK. That’s it. You may need to add a blank line to the text objects if they don’t begin on the left edge. On the dev.mobi validation: you can remove most of the ‘errors’ by adding the things they refer to. I agree it would be much nicer to have it done automatically by SiteSpinner but you would still have to decide on the values. For example, cache-control can be added in the page editor header option (e.g. <meta http-equiv="Cache-Control" content="max-age=200" /> There does seem to be an error in one of the errors. When they say: The element type "meta" must be terminated by the matching end-tag "</meta>". That is not true. At least not for the DOCTYPE we are using (HTML 4.01 Transitional) Also, don’t forget as I mentioned earlier, publishing with ‘Mobile only’ does not produce a mobile specific page, it produces a regular page using only the mobile layout. |
|||
|
|
Working Mechanic |
Well, checking the No CSS Positioning box produced an "interesting" result. Any clues about this...here is the site via the iPhone emulator (it looks the same on any emulator or in a regular browser)
http://iphonetester.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fconsultyou.net%2Fmobi_p |
|||
|
VM Staff![]() |
I looks like you need to turn off horizontal centering (in the page editor).
Don't forget to add a blank line to the beginning of the text objects if they need it. Also keep in mind this method is basically removing any CSS postioning and allowing the browser to flow the objects as it sees fit. So your layout will have less impact on want you actually see. |
|||
|
|
Working Mechanic |
Well, I've done it! The end of the journey. This has been a great adventure if you look through this thread. My final version of a mobile site was started with SS Pro. I then went through it and made all of the corrections (by hand) I could find on the Web that would make the final page validate 100%...quite a few little items. If you go to the link at the end you can view the validation results. It would be great to have SSP to integrate all of those "small" authoring fixes...just a goal...
Validation Site |
|||
|
|
Working Mechanic |
One answer to this part of the post re: "Meta" must be terminated... the reason for that error and and similar errors are due fact that to validate all tags need to be closed (</meta>, </p>, </br>, etc.) Once this is done for the whole page, you'll eventually get to that "5.0" validation point. |
|||
|
VM Staff![]() |
Congratulations!
I am glad you stuck with it. We certainly appreciated your ongoing commentary and we are going add several of those things to the 'Mobile Only' option on SiteSpinner Pro for the next update. Regarding the </meta> tag error: Yes it is an error if you are using that site's recommended doctype but it is not for SSP's current doctype. I guess they are just keeping things simple by only validating against the type that they recommend. So it's not really an issue either way. Again, congratulation on the big 5.0! |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
| Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|

