tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22479167.post5519578399005596489..comments2023-10-20T05:10:04.428+13:00Comments on mLearning-World.com: 480 x 320 is the new 1024 x 768 (From Clark Quinn's Learnlets Blog)Matthew Nehrlinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01359473805222145988noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22479167.post-41736666291167654632008-04-30T17:15:00.000-11:002008-04-30T17:15:00.000-11:00@Steve: well (just for example) using a set of ima...@Steve: well (just for example) using a set of image files is one way of packaging a presentation to make it more mobile and interoperable. I don't know of many PMPs that can read a PowerPoint file or a PDF, for example, but iPods, mobile phones, and most other mobile devices can happily display a folder of sequentially-numbered image files.<BR/><BR/>Adding text to an image is also the standard method for the creation of LoLCats. :) And it's nice to have a couple of favourite kittehs on one's mobile device for sharing or a midday chuckle. :)Leonardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09153401059972970062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22479167.post-53743071464110129842008-04-30T15:18:00.000-11:002008-04-30T15:18:00.000-11:00Why would you even consider putting text into an i...Why would you even consider putting text into an image if you know it's headed for mobile? :-)<BR/><BR/>I agree - liquid design makes most sense. eems like most people are still stuck with HTML in mind, though, when they talk mobile content. There are many richer alternatives ...Steve Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08038999405216189880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22479167.post-73417979759694804792008-04-30T15:08:00.000-11:002008-04-30T15:08:00.000-11:00Sizing mobile content certainly has been a content...Sizing mobile content certainly has been a contentious issue. When I wrote the Standards for mobile learning, I grappled with various ideas on standardising the sizes and formats of content, and ultimately had to conclude that prescribing a single size (or, in most cases, file format) for mobile content was a flawed approach.<BR/><BR/>Instead, I took up the W3C's position on the issue. They suggest creating content that is capable of rendering on "baseline" specifications; but, where possible, creating it so that it scales up gracefully (in terms of both appearance and functionality) for more capable devices. For example, a 640x480 JPEG file displays well on a huge variety of mobile devices, and doesn't take up a huge amount of memory capacity; but a 160x160 image is much more limiting and may even be incapable of rendering the content sufficiently (e.g. text in the image may be too pixelated to be readable), even on higher-resolution devices.<BR/><BR/>Where such an approach cannot be adopted, providing alternative sizes and formats is the next-best approach, and allows the end-user to download or access the content that is most suitable for their particular device. This is the case with things like video files, where different devices play different file formats at different resolutions. Rather than prescribe a single "standard" - which would then exclude the vast majority of devices from even being capable of displaying the content - the most accessible approach is to provide the same content, pre-converted to different sizes and/or file formats, to allow the user to conveniently choose and download the best version for their device.<BR/><BR/>The idea of creating *all* mobile content to target low-specification devices is to be avoided. This approach only results in poor-quality mobile experiences even on highly-capable mobile platforms.Leonardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09153401059972970062noreply@blogger.com