GetMo Publisher Guide

[David]

Google are taking "mobile" very seriously and the GetMo initiative is aimed at getting their users (mainly AdSense publishers - like me) to be ready for an increase in mobile access to their websites. It makes complete sense for Google to do this because they rely heavily on income from AdWords and they need to ensure that the delivery platforms for their adverts are good for mobile, otherwise there will be a drop in revenue.

So, they've produced this rather nifty little guide (http://www.howtogetmo.com/en-gb/d/getmo-guides/#mobile-for-publishers) on building mobile sites. It's not technical but contains some really good general design principles.

I'm at a GetMo event tomorrow at Google in London - should be interesting and possibly enjoyable as long as my hosts aren't too pushy.

[tomjeatt]

Thanks David - downloaded that to read us later. Let us know how the event goes.

[uzoma]

There will be one mobile device for every person on earth by 2015!!!

That's a bold prediction! But even if that's only 50% accurate, it's enough of a reason to act fast!!!

Thanks for sharing David.

[yianni88]

Very good point Uzoma.

[David]

Well, I had an interesting day on Wednesday at the new Google offices on Shaftesbury Ave. The event was part of the GetMo (get mobile) campaign run by Google to encourage their advertisers (AdWords) and publishers (Adsense), like me to create "mobile" versions of our websites so as not to miss out on the revenue bounty that is waiting for us on the mobile platform. That's the setup, now here's what I thought...

<rant>
Although there were a couple of interesting talks, basically, this event was mostly about putting website owners in contact with web developers with a mobile platform bias. For many this may have been useful but it just made me MAD. When asked by a member of the audience how they were able to create a "mobile" website, one developer said, "well, its a bit complicated but essentially, we have software that sucks up all the content from your desktop site and squirts it into a mobile version of your site". You can imagine what I was thinking as a number of other developers said similar things - the general message was: OK, so you have a desktop site but now you need a mobile site as well (kerching! - and presumably they'll be back in another couple of years trying to convince poor, uninformed website owners that they also need a third "web TV" version of their site). I couldn't just say nothing, so I asked, "I didn't hear any of you mention "responsive web design" or "one web" in your presentations, surely your two-web approach is just wrong?" They smiled pityingly and explained that CSS3 media queries were "just not there yet" and that "no one on a mobile phone wants to download all 1MB of a typical desktop homepage". At that point, I just shut up and let them get on with it.
</rant>

The whole experience made me think that we must be operating in some bubble of web design purism but you only have to look at all the content online to realise that that isn't true. Our way (one web) is the right way but clearly it doesn't make as much money for developers and so they have a vested interest in ignoring or discrediting it.

Did anything useful come out of the day? Yes, I made some good contacts - it was a great networking opportunity.

[uzoma]

It's interesting to think that Google would facilitate an event canvassing for this two-web approach. Is there more of a profit for them that way? I can see why some developers would push this, but why Google...?

[yianni88]

Thanks for the update David! So "one web" is the correct way but creating "mobile" versions and later "web TV" versions of sites is a good way for developers (and Google) to make more money by designing many versions of the same website for different devices? Just a hunch but I'm guessing clients are not going to be happy with this!

[David]

Google weren't promoting any particular approach to design. The event was created to facilitate the meeting of website owners and developers who could "help" them. There was no one from Google saying: "this is how it should be done". My feeling is that the developers should have been vetted - sure there are many different types of sites and therefore many different solutions required but there was a distinct lack of any philosophy or long-term thinking, which I found disturbing.