| |
WAP |
| |
andrew (15:10 16/12/2002)
moss (15:25 16/12/2002)
andypoole (20:58 16/12/2002)
andrew (23:42 16/12/2002)
andrew (14:12 17/12/2002)
rich (23:25 31/12/2002)
mavhc (21:31 1/1/2003)
rich (09:10 5/1/2003)
andrew (13:41 7/1/2003)
|
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #27146, posted by andrew at 15:10, 16/12/2002 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
What's the chance of WAPping the forums? |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #27149, posted by moss at 15:25, 16/12/2002, in reply to message #27146 |
Posts: 9348
|
Oooh, yes, that *is* a good idea!  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #27162, posted by andypoole at 20:58, 16/12/2002, in reply to message #27146 |
Posts: 5558
|
What's the chance of WAPping the forums? Probably slim as I assume it would mean rewriting the UI for it from scratch.
Who the hell uses WAP for anything interesting anyway 
________
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #27165, posted by andrew at 23:42, 16/12/2002, in reply to message #27162 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Clearly some people as Rich added WAP capability a while ago and I've frequently foud it useful.
I foud out about RO5 through WAP and was suitably shocked! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #27224, posted by andrew at 14:12, 17/12/2002, in reply to message #27165 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
So how about it, beer vouchers in it for you Tim! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #27692, posted by rich at 23:25, 31/12/2002, in reply to message #27224 |
 Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
I very much doubt that, even if the forum could be converted to WAP, it'd be of much use. bearing in mind that the Nokia 7110 was the best-selling WAP phone (at least when I last looked) you're limited to about 2K of text per page with no effects (bold, italic etc.) and no smileys as they don't inline (and I think there's a limit of the number of images per page on some devices too).
WAP is okay for things like news, because you only really need plain text - if the headline doesn't come out in bold it doesn't really matter, you don't lose any context or content. But with the number of smileys involved in these forums, dropping those could be catastophic!
________
 Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #27701, posted by mavhc at 21:31, 1/1/2003, in reply to message #27692 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
no smileys as they don't inline Yet another reason to use real smilies. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #27746, posted by rich at 09:10, 5/1/2003, in reply to message #27701 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
no smileys as they don't inline Yet another reason to use real smilies.
That's okay if people just used one smiley per paragraph, but not so hot for the large smiley blocks that sometimes get used around here.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #27897, posted by andrew at 13:41, 7/1/2003, in reply to message #27746 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
no smileys as they don't inline Yet another reason to use real smilies.
That's okay if people just used one smiley per paragraph, but not so hot for the large smiley blocks that sometimes get used around here.
Yes that dawned on me soon after I posted |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
