Mobile Site Design: A Standards-Free Wild West

Written by Fred J. Aun
August 13th, 2009

Aside from uncertainty about whether M-Commerce will earn them enough money to make it worthwhile, the sheer absence of Mobile Web design standards is a daunting problem for retailers that have yet to launch transaction-ready mobile sites. In many ways, it’s still the Wild West when it comes to crafting M-Commerce sites that a retailer can expect will work well on all, or even most, mobile devices.

In an attempt to bring some sanity to the Mobile Web mess, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), in 2005, formed a Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group. In 2008, the group released a Mobile Web Best Practices guide that lists 60 recommendations. Although not specific to mobile commerce sites, the suggestions include many obvious suggestions, such as “provide only minimal navigation at the top of the page,” “provide consistent navigation mechanisms,” “do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user.”

Related Story: U.S. Retailers Tip-Toe Through Mobile Commerce Minefields

Missing are the much more crucial specific recommendations so that developers can agree on what constitutes the center of the screen and at what point are pointers needed to tell users that there’s a critical piece of information—such as an “add to cart” button—outside that center area. Or a way for a site to automatically detect a mobile device or how to name a URL.

Apparently, there isn’t even standardization among those hoping to create standards and even M-Commerce experts aren’t all abreast of the situation. For example, Impact Mobile CEO and President Barry Schwartz said he was unaware of the W3C effort but noted the Mobile Marketing Association (MMA) was busy crafting its own M-Commerce site design guidelines. On its Web site, the MMA’s Mobile Commerce Committee said its goal is to eventually enable “simple, consistent and compatible consumer experiences across all carriers” and to “establish balanced guidelines that encourage brand, retail and media adoption to drive consumption.”

Despite the talk about, and obvious need for, some standardization, the industry has gone in the opposite direction as carriers and device makers attempt to gain market share by differentiation, said Ran Farmer, managing director of Netbiscuits. Farmer said there are now between 5,000 and 6,000 unique mobile devices in use and each device has 750 to 800 characteristics that make it different from another, often in ways that can impact their rendering of Mobile Web pages.

When all those device idiosyncrasies are taken into consideration and carrier characteristics are added to the mix, a retailer wanting its M-Commerce site to appear properly on every device must have a system that can optimize the site in about 45,000 slightly different ways, Farmers said. “We test devices and we know that there are 750 to 800 different things about every device,” he said. “It’s a pretty big effort just to keep track.”

Although the M-Commerce capabilities of mobile devices are steadily improving, the same technology advances that are driving those advances are adding to the mayhem. Forget about just having to craft M-Commerce sites that work with different brands of devices. It’s even a challenge to make sites that work with the various models being sold by each brand. “With Blackberry, you have the Pearl with a small screen, the older Curve with a nice, average screen, the new Curve which has same size screen but twice the resolution, the Bold with a slightly larger screen and double the resolution and the Storm which is double the size screen,” Digby CEO/Founder Dave Sikora said. “So how will whatever you do for mobile devices look on all those systems? And, by the way, there might be different browsers associated with that as well.”

Among the W3C’s best practices recommendations:

  • Ensure that content provided by accessing a URL yields a thematically coherent experience when accessed from different devices
  • Exploit device capabilities to provide an enhanced user experience
  • Carry out testing on actual devices as well as emulators
  • Keep the URLs of site entry points short
  • Provide only minimal navigation at the top of the page
  • Ensure that content is suitable for use in a mobile context
  • Limit scrolling to one direction
  • Do not use images that cannot be rendered by the device
  • Do not rely on cookies being available

  • advertisement

    Comments are closed.


    StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

    Most Recent Comments

    Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

    I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
    Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
    A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
    The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
    @David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

    Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.