Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Experience the New Slashdot Mobile Site

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the tastier-than-bacon dept.

Announcements 384

After many months of effort, today we've brought the new mobile site out of beta. Featuring an interface optimized for touch devices, we think it's a huge improvement over the old mobile interface. You'll find comments easier to navigate, the most popular stories highlighted at the top of the page, and a surprisingly pleasant interface for navigating old polls. We've also spiffed up user profiles, resurrecting and improving the friend/foe system in the process. And that's not all: we're pleased to announce that you can login to Slashdot in general using various social media accounts, so if you use Facebook or Google+ there's no excuse not to enjoy the benefits of being a registered user, without the hassle of creating yet another account. Our weblog has a few more details. As always, if you encounter any issues let us know by mailing feedback@slashdot.org.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No thanks (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809453)

No thanks. It's pretty terrible. Can you also stop the chooser popup please? I want to use the classic site without constantly bombardment with a popup.

Re:No thanks (4, Insightful)

motang (1266566) | about 2 years ago | (#42809501)

I second that, the classic is great!

Re:No thanks (4, Informative)

jest3r (458429) | about 2 years ago | (#42809951)

I third that. I don't understand why we need a dumbed down version of the site when my phone can display the full site just fine? I'v enever had a problem browsing the full site and prefer it.

Re:No thanks (4, Interesting)

pmontra (738736) | about 2 years ago | (#42810049)

I fourth that. And fix the theme so it works with Firefox (mobile). It's a blank page right now. Not that I use FF on my phone often, I'm using Dolphin most of the time but I wouldn't mind if more site were compatible with more browsers.
By the way: polls don't work in the mobile theme in Dolphin: the options don't display. I think I'll keep using Classic.

Re:No thanks (4, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 years ago | (#42809517)

The constant popup is annoying. I would use the mobile site, though, except when I said "yes" to the popup a few weeks back, then tried to reply to a comment, Safari crashed on my phone.

Can you let us set a user preference in our account as to whether we want the mobile site or not on mobile devices? Bonus points for letting us set it on a per-browser-string basis, so I could use the mobile site on my phone (assuming it doesn't continue to crash) but the full site on my tablet.

Re:No thanks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809737)

Roll Back!!! Roll Back!!! Roll Back!!!

abort, abort, abort!!!

News flash, techie people prefer functionality to glitz. I prefer the desktop site on my phone. New mobile version isn't appealing.

Re:No thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809831)

It stinks!

Re:No thanks (1)

beeudoublez (619109) | about 2 years ago | (#42809871)

Hey there, you should only see the popup once, and we store a local reminder to save this preference. Do you have local storage or cookies disabled?

Re:No thanks (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809887)

No. Mobile Safari is at default settings.

Re:No thanks (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#42810051)

I use stock Dolphin browser, and haven't disabled cookie storage. However, I do get the pop-up every single time I view a story on slashdot.

Re:No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42810053)

I'm also getting repeated prompts to use the horrible new mobile site. This is with Chrome for Android.

This morning there was even one moment when I could not click either the "send me back to the old version" or the "take me to the crappy new one" buttons. I had to reload the page for some reason, then it worked.

TL;DR: The new version is awful, please don't get rid of the old one!

Re:No thanks (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | about 2 years ago | (#42809889)

Ugh. Seriously. I can only see headlines at first on the mobile version. I can't even bother to expand all the stories to get the synopses.

Re:No thanks (1)

AtomicBison (2667343) | about 2 years ago | (#42809921)

I've yet to see a mobile site that is even comparable to the full site. Bring back the full site only, please!

Re:No thanks (2)

Fallon (33975) | about 2 years ago | (#42809943)

I get to Slashdot via my RSS feed, which goes directly to the article. The pop-up then boots me back to the root website rather than staying on the article I was trying to view if I tell it to use mobile. On Android, if you scroll down at all, you can no longer click on the mobile or classic buttons too, extremely annoying. You have to scroll up to the top of the page to be able to click on the buttons & make it go away, despite the pop-up scrolling down the page to cover stuff up.

Re:No thanks (1)

Dumass (602667) | about 2 years ago | (#42809983)

The chooser popped up once or twice in Reeder on my iPhone but seems to have disappeared as of a few days ago and I only get the desktop site now. It'd be nice to have a "switch to mobile/desktop" link somewhere on the page.

It's ok (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809461)

I think I still prefer the original.

Tried it (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about 2 years ago | (#42809487)

And I don't like it. Please stop with the popup every single time I open the browser on a mobile device. I'm a creature of habit as I'm sure many others are here and the old mobile interface isn't so far a divergence from the desktop site that i'm not sure where things are. The problem with the new mobile site is it's too different. This is not a social networking site. Please don't try to make it into one.

Re:Tried it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809527)

Looks like Dice strikes again. How long before we're asked to create a dice.com account in order to use Slashdot?

Re:Tried it (2)

Psyborgue (699890) | about 2 years ago | (#42809547)

I was thinking the same. If this is what our new overlords think we want maybe it's time to create something new.

Re:Tried it (1)

Jaruzel (804522) | about 2 years ago | (#42809769)

I keep saying this. If enough of us get together I'm sure we could instigate a mass migration over to something else - Son of Slashdot maybe, with content and usability like /. USED be several years ago...

Re:Tried it (5, Insightful)

Cinder6 (894572) | about 2 years ago | (#42810075)

I'm using it right now (though posting from my desktop). Honestly, it's a lot faster than the old site, and navigation is more friendly to touch devices. Most importantly, comments load better than before. With that said, two things bother me about it:

1. The aesthetic is completely different from the desktop site, to the point that I wouldn't know it's Slashdot if it didn't say so at the top. This isn't a huge deal, but brand recognition is important.
2. The article summaries are shortened on the front page, and you have to tap the headline in order to load the whole thing along with contents. This breaks up the site's flow and makes it harder just to peruse articles. Take, for instance, the following excerpt:

Two economists at the St. Louis Federal Reserve have published a paper arguing that the American patent system...

The shortened summary offers nothing of value to me; the headline is actually much more informative. What I think needs to happen is either enable full, unshortened summaries, or write a summary of the summary for mobile devices. One of those options is silly, the other is reasonable.

m./. /.'ed? (2)

DogDude (805747) | about 2 years ago | (#42809489)

Doesn't do anything on my phone. The "loading" bar just sits there loading, and no articles ever come up. Perhaps this was announced a bit prematurely...?

Re:m./. /.'ed? (2)

Internal Modem (1281796) | about 2 years ago | (#42809677)

It requires JavaScript to work.

Re:m./. /.'ed? (0)

telchine (719345) | about 2 years ago | (#42809679)

Slashdot Slashdots Slashdot on the sea shore?

Sorry, not so good (4, Insightful)

C R Johnson (141) | about 2 years ago | (#42809491)

Every time I have tried the new mobile site my experience was not good.
I can't even scroll down easily and when I do it jumps into an article that I didn't select.
And it doesn't look good.
Maybe it's opera mobile's fault. Maybe you need to think on this some more.

Re:Sorry, not so good (5, Informative)

Psyborgue (699890) | about 2 years ago | (#42809503)

No. It behaves like shit on mobile Chrome too.

Re:Sorry, not so good (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42809917)

And Dolphin.

Re:Sorry, not so good (1)

Internal Modem (1281796) | about 2 years ago | (#42809623)

Same exact behavior in mobile Safari.

Re:Sorry, not so good (1)

niado (1650369) | about 2 years ago | (#42809765)

Every time I have tried the new mobile site my experience was not good. I can't even scroll down easily and when I do it jumps into an article that I didn't select. And it doesn't look good. Maybe it's opera mobile's fault. Maybe you need to think on this some more.

I've had the same experience on the default Android browser.

"New" Mobile Site? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 2 years ago | (#42809497)

Doesn't that imply that there was a mobile site before? To the best of my understanding there was never a mobile slashdot site before now - or at least, not one that worked. I also like how the "new" mobile site launches now thta BlackBerry is considered to be a marginalized niche player - I had pointed out before that slashdot would crash most Blackberries and they always made excuses for not doing anything about it. Now that BlackBerry is no longer viewed as particularly relevant they can more easily get away with continuing to ignore it.

(and I say this as a blackberry user)

Re:"New" Mobile Site? (2)

Psyborgue (699890) | about 2 years ago | (#42809529)

There was a mobile site. It only differed slightly from the desktop site so it wasn't too much of a shock.

A lot of effort wasted. (0)

_bug_ (112702) | about 2 years ago | (#42809505)

Disable javascript and the mobile site presents a blank screen.

Some simple CSS with media queries (no javascript needed) and you could very easily have a (mobile) site that works regardless of the end-user's screen size.

Very disappointing.

Re:A lot of effort wasted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809711)

Yes. The industry is moving away from device-specific sites and adopting the idea of responsive design. Which is a good idea since the screen sizes evolve all the time. I personally hate it when i get a mobile-tailored site when using my ipad.

I like it but... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#42809523)

It looks ok and viewing comments is generally better but it feels a bit busy. The old mobile site with improved comment views would be best.

Re:I like it but... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#42809539)

Forgot to add it's mostly just nesting that's an issue on the old one.

Re:I like it but... (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809579)

But that would require actually expending effort to fix things. That's never been the Slashdot way. They couldn't even fix the pagination bugs in the version before they did the whole discussion overhaul. They want to chunk out new code, not do "boring" software maintenance.

Waste of expenditure (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809545)

Trying to keep /. relevant? Cheesy stuff like this is a waste of time/money. Invest in better editors that post stories the same day they occur. I don't enjoy reading things I saw on Reddit or Hacker News two days ago. Hint: it doesn't do wonders for engagement.

Please stop the nagging dialog while you're at it.


That's ok (1)

Jethro (14165) | about 2 years ago | (#42809559)

I've had zero problems using the desktop version on my mobile devices, especially my tablet. Now I get a popup to deal with everytime. Seriously, the regular site is fine. I appreciate the effort but it's not necessary. Honestly I'd rather you guys spent time fixing bugs in the RSS feeds that perhaps someone reported months ago and go ignored.

Doesn't work in laptop web browser (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809561)

m.slashdot.org only shows a blank page in Chrome on my laptop.

Re:Doesn't work in laptop web browser (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#42809837)

Same thing with IE10.

m.slashdot.org Chrome on XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809565)

Best not to browse mobile on a desktop any more. Seems that only the links in the footer work now.

Captcha: saddest

What about ipv6? (3, Interesting)

DeAxes (522822) | about 2 years ago | (#42809573)

Forget mobile, I'm still waiting for Slashdot to have a AAAA record.

Hate hate hate (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809583)

I hate it and it's terrible and it sucks and I hate it and it's different and why did it change and it's terrible and it's different and it's not working on my obscure phone so it's useless to everyone and it sucks and nobody should ever ever ever ever ever use it ever again and I don't like it. It's stupid. I'm a nerd, so I know this sort of thing. I'll click the link later when I've got time to look at it.

Re:Hate hate hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809645)

Since you seem to be mad about the criticism what exactly is better about it? It's slower to load. Has useless effects and gradients, etc. thrown in for no reason than to look shiny. And throwing in every new web framework and library to hit the buzzword bingo. It also sucks down battery more. The only actual functional change that might be an improvement could have just been fixed in the classic mode without rewriting everything.

Re:Hate hate hate (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809717)

Don't forget the lack of full summaries amongst the other feature and usabllity regressions.

Re:Hate hate hate (1, Flamebait)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42809949)

Since you seem to be mad about the criticism what exactly is better about it?

Haters gonna hate.

D-bag OP, like most trolls, just wants to hear his own head rattle.

Do Not Want (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#42809587)

"we're pleased to announce that you can login to Slashdot in general using various social media accounts,"

Why would I want to do this? On Slashdot, of all the sites on the internet, people value their privacy. Perhaps we don't want the data-miners at Facebook to monitor our slashdot usernames, cross-correlate post times against estimated work hours and calculate our estimated slacking-off coefficient to better target advertisments? I'm entirely happy to have lots of seperate accounts - it beats 'One Account to Rule them All.'

Re:Do Not Want (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809697)

Because they are flailing around at trying to figure out how to stay relevant. It's inane as when they added the "like" feature.

Re:Do Not Want (4, Insightful)

Bodero (136806) | about 2 years ago | (#42809699)

Why would I want to do this?

Maybe you wouldn't. And maybe someone else does. That's why it's an option.

Re:Do Not Want (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809757)

Or it's simply Dice pushing the feature to harvest your social network info. That's far more likely than any significant group of users asking for such a thing.

Re:Do Not Want (5, Informative)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | about 2 years ago | (#42809975)

There's no evil conspiracy here (see the permissions the facebook "app" requests for example: just your name and email address); we just wanted to make it easier for people to login. I personally wouldn't use it (but I'm in the set of people who only grudgingly use facebook in the first place since everyone else is doing it), but folks immediately started using it, even without us mentioning that it existed.

Luckily, it's just an option, and will never supersede the native account system. Different strokes for different folks and insert other appropriate cliches here.

Re:Do Not Want (3, Interesting)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#42809895)

By the way, have you guys noticed that when you open a Slashdot comment in a separate page (by clicking the message ID link) and then close that page, it shows "Working..." at the bottom for a while, possibly phoning home that you closed that comment.

Re:Do Not Want (1)

dstyle5 (702493) | about 2 years ago | (#42809987)

Hopefully its not Phase 1 of "Operation Push Everyone to Social Media Accounts", like so many other websites are doing these days.

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42810027)

Don't worry, Dice is doing it slowly to make the eventual change seem less dramatic.

Too Sensitive to Touch (3, Insightful)

Internal Modem (1281796) | about 2 years ago | (#42809593)

You guys did something wrong. In mobile Safari when I try to scroll down the page, it often detects my touch as a click and opens a story I don't want to read. This isn't a problem with the browser because it doesn't happen on any other mobile site. It seems to be a problem with the size of your click-able regions. I'm not sure what kind of beta testing was done, but it obviously wasn't enough.

Re:Too Sensitive to Touch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809689)

It does that on my Galaxy Nexus too. Use a plain css layout and minimize how much javascript you use. Media queries may be useful.

Re:Too Sensitive to Touch (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 years ago | (#42810017)

I read Slashdot with mobile Firefox. You have to use Safari (or a skin wrapped around it to pretend not)? Maybe the apple.slashdot.org subdomain should be "tuned" for mobile safari and the rest of Slashdot preserved for "the rest of us." Can't read Slashdot on your gadget? Talk to the guards at the gate of your app store.

I love using Firefox on Android. Its a way of browsing the web without being "logged in" to the googleplex

Worthless! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809601)

You IGNORED every constructive comment that people made regarding this mobile interface. You INSISTED on doing it the stupid way.

Nobody is going to use your mobile interface when it makes browsing slashdot MORE WORK than before. We can't even get full article summaries on the front page! What kind of bullshit is that?

And I think it's just wonderful how every mobile user gets a banner suggesting they switch to the much more heavily ad-strewn mobile interface. Congratulations slashdot, you've managed to create a mobile interface that is WORSE than the full site on just about every level. way to ignore your customers.

I like new things but ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809603)

Tried it once and instantly went back to classic. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

Laggy (1)

Imagix (695350) | about 2 years ago | (#42809611)

Hmm... not impressed. Browse to the top site, the browser goes unresponsive for about 8 seconds. Browse into a story, reasonably fast. Browse back to the stories list, another 8 second lag. Can't even scroll. (Chrome on an iPad 3, Wifi)

My chief complaint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809613)

I want more of the summary before I open

classic, I see a lot more text without clicking

new version, not enough to decide if it's worth opening for more

The original site is better, because: (5, Informative)

knarf (34928) | about 2 years ago | (#42809615)

  1. it is faster
  2. I can open a bunch of topics in new background tabs for later perusal
  3. did I mention it was faster?
  4. it works without JavaScript

It has one disadvantage: I have to click away a popup which asks me to use the new site, time and again...

Visual feedback is missing and the site feels slow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809631)

When I click on an item in the mobile interface there is no visual feedback and since the site is often very sluggish I end up clicking again trying to make it go where I want it to and then find out that all my clicks were received.

scrolling lag (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809653)

The mobile site lags badly while scrolling on an Android device using chrome. Any chance of fixing this?

Needs work (5, Informative)

jimpop (27817) | about 2 years ago | (#42809659)

When following a link to /., if I answer Yes to the pop-up prompt, i get redirected to http://m.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] and NOT the story I was linking to

Re:Needs work (1)

Dumass (602667) | about 2 years ago | (#42809945)

Took the words out of my mouth. This is infuriating and trivial to fix.

Re:Needs work (1, Informative)

vroom (43) | about 2 years ago | (#42810073)

Thanks for the feedback on this, will work on getting this fixed.

mobile site (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 2 years ago | (#42809661)

*makes a-ok sign, then glares* It stinks.

scrolling still broken (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | about 2 years ago | (#42809669)

Hey dummies, you broke scrolling during the beta. It simply doesn't scroll properly on the default Android browser. Something is mucked up with touch event handling. Please fix this. That is why everybody keeps saying they prefer classic mode - at least you can scroll properly.

Re:scrolling still broken (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 years ago | (#42810081)

Go to the Play Store and get Firefox. You won't look back.

A little better (3, Interesting)

bsharitt (580506) | about 2 years ago | (#42809713)

The old mobile site wasn't really mobile, so I guess anything is better, though it's a pretty slow and heavy site it seems. It looks to be working in Firefox for Android now, that's an improvement over the last time I used the beta.

So how long until /. wraps up the new mobile site in an app wrapper and advertises a "mobile app" for iPhone and Android like seemingly every other website out there?

Classic (3, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | about 2 years ago | (#42809735)

WeÃ(TM)ve built the mobile user experience with the future in mind

And yet Slashdot is still incapable of handling nonASCII characters. Unicode is over 20 years old, guys.

Is there any reason why this was done as a separate site and not with a responsive design? Separate mobile sites are the old-fashioned way of doing things.

Re:Classic (4, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809849)

Yes but Unicode and IPv6 are clearly just fads. They aren't nearly as important as Facebook/Google+ login and filling out the buzzword bingo card with all the fad frameworks:

We built this app using the latest technologies and frameworks such as Backbone, Zepto, Underscore, Hamstache, Jasmine, and Sass.

Re:Classic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809957)

Possibly Slashdot administration consists mostly of old school Perl hackers that cannot pull Unicode support properly. There's heaps of knowledge how to implement an Unicode website securely and it's certainly part of the modern world.

Go away with this crap ! (2)

thrill12 (711899) | about 2 years ago | (#42809751)

Finally, get ready for... [rant mode on]
I am sick of having the message "would you like to try beta or classic" every time when I browse Slashdot on my Chrome browser under my Nexus. I want the *regular* site, or something as close to it as possible. I even cannot click on the "classic" button... First lesson for new designs: if someone says *not for me* then leave them alone or they will leave your site alone.
Why should I have to press "request desktop site" each time I simply want to read an article ? This is not a PALM III where I zoom in with the Plus and Minus keys: my browser is more powerful than a Windows IE6 browser (feature wise), faster than many regular old Pentium IV's and pinching is good enough to get around the site.

[rant mode off]

Re:Go away with this crap ! (3, Informative)

Psyborgue (699890) | about 2 years ago | (#42810039)

You have to be scrolled all the way to the top of the screen to click the classic popup in mobile Chrome my Nexus. If you scroll down the popup stays on the screen but tapping it does nothing. You have to scroll back up, and then tap. It's annoying as fuck, I know.

Unusably slow, UI provides no feedback (4, Informative)

zenyu (248067) | about 2 years ago | (#42809759)

When I click on something it takes forever for the UI to respond. There is no visual feedback so until I realized that the new UI was just 200x slower than the old one I clicked on the things 5-10 times thinking the clicks just didn't take the first n-1 times.

I've obviously switched back to using the desktop site on my mobiles, but there is a popup on every page load asking me to try the mobile site! Sheesh!

You need to fire the contractors involved and hire some people who know what they are doing.

So so (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809767)

I jused the (new) mobile site for the first time on an iPhone 4S and had no issues whatsoever. Although I like the overall look and feel of the site I don't think a redesign was all that necessary. Sorry, devs :) But don't listen to the haters, they wouldn't like it no matter how it had turned out!

Re:So so (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809877)

Wrong. I hate it because scrolling is laggy, page load is laggy, clicking gives no feedback, touch events are too sensitive, no full summaries, etc. Those are all pretty major regressions in usability and functionality.

Scrolling not working (1)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | about 2 years ago | (#42809777)

On my Note 2 the mobile site is having trouble registering any scrolling. It's most likely due to bad javascript.

Re:Scrolling not working (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#42809869)

If you scroll by touching just the right edge it works fine. Anywhere else on the screen and it doesn't work properly.

Re:Scrolling not working (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42809903)

Which is pretty broken design for a mobile device site.

Re:Scrolling not working (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 2 years ago | (#42809929)

Yeah it's really shit.

You insensitive clods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809783)

But my mobile device doesn't have a touchscreen. How will this site fare under Opera Mini?

Gave it an honest try, wen't back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809797)

As others have already mentioned, it's no good.
It's slower, it's glitchier, and many of the basics just don't work as well as the old site. I tried it for a few weeks but eventually gave up. It's just not as efficient as the old site.

Holy crap that was awful (4, Informative)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 years ago | (#42809841)

What the fuck were you guys thinking?

An, in general, what the fuck is going on with people designing user interfaces these days? It seems everywhere you go there's yet another abortion of a user interface.


scrolling is impossible (2)

Isara (869637) | about 2 years ago | (#42809861)

And it's making it difficult to navigate the site. Plus, there doesn't appear to be a way to get back into classic once you're in mobile. Looks ok, just needs functional work

polls don't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809891)

the poll shows as the top story, but yet when I want to vote it doesn't show me any options...

Pass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809893)

Anonymous Coward #5846292 also prefers the standard site and will continue utilizing the standard site, wearing onions on belt, etc.

Wheres the app? (1)

CHK6 (583097) | about 2 years ago | (#42809905)

While the virtues of mobile web is alluring to content providers, I prefer dedicated mobile apps over opening a mobile web page.
Might I suggest Slashdot start out making a simple Apple and Android application. Until such time I will continue to use my Reddit mobile application when getting my news that matters.

On a decent tablet/phone the regular site is fine. (2)

BlueKitties (1541613) | about 2 years ago | (#42809907)

I browse /. on my Nexus 4 and iPad, both of which display the full /. site perfectly. The layout of the site downscales rather nicely, and I've never had an issues with it. The "mobile" site, on the otherhand, is not my cup of tea. It just doesn't feel very slashdotty.

Did slashdot just get slashdot'ed? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 2 years ago | (#42809933)

Trying to load it from my mobile device over 4G, and over my desktop via hard-line. It's either not loading, or running a LOT slower than the beta was the other day.

Did slashdot just "slashdot" themselves?

And mobile version fails on desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42809967)

And it fails on a desktop. Looks like whatever library you used does not have touch/click events. Fail.

Thoughts (1)

MatrixCubed (583402) | about 2 years ago | (#42809973)

The mobile site is somewhat unresponsive on my Galaxy Nexus. I found I had to "swipe more" to get the site to scroll. This doesn't occur elsewhere, so I can only assume it's the toolkit you're using.

The orange-to-teal header background takes a visibly long time to load; with the support on mobile phones being what it is, it would make sense to render this using SVG or Canvas, and cut down on load time.

The UI theme is rather quirky, and doesn't animate fluidly, for example when loading new content, drilling deeper into settings, and the like.

Night mode (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#42809991)

My long-time request has been to have a black color theme in the settings...

Fire your product manager (5, Insightful)

pherthyl (445706) | about 2 years ago | (#42810001)

The new site is terrible. I really tried to use it for a couple weeks but had to go back (iPhone 4).

The new site is significantly slower first of all, which essentially kills it right off the bat. Speed should be your #1 feature. If you can't make it faster on mobile, don't bother with the redesign just tweak the existing layout.

It's also very glitchy as others have pointed out.
  - Scrolling down often results in a click.
  - After the page loads it jumps to the top again if you scroll down too fast
  - transitions are glitchy and slow. Don't use them they don't add anything.

As for the announcement it is just full of fail.

>> We've built this new mobile interface optimized exclusively for your touch smartphones and tablets.

Why? The revolutionary part of the iPhone was that it could handle regular desktop sites and we could do away with WAP. Now we suddenly need a special site again? Just make sure that the layout scales well and you're done for mobile on a site that is purely about content. It's a different story if you're something like an online retailer where people want quick access to a few key functions (search, store locator, inventory, my account, etc).

>> Read comments and stories in a mobile-friendly view (no more squinting!)

Never had to squint on the old site. what's the problem?

>> Most popular stories shown right at the top

If I passed by a story earlier in the day what makes you think I want to see it again?

>> See beautiful achievement badges

I have no words. This is so stupid.

>> Show off your latest Gravatar

Yep, that's why I'm here.

>> We built this app using the latest technologies and frameworks such as Backbone, Zepto, Underscore, Hamstache, Jasmine, and Sass.

So you jumped on the bandwagon of stupidly named frameworks and used all of them because that's the thing to do these days. Surprise surprise, the end result is too heavy.

>> Since there are so many mobile devices and capabilities, we targeted webkit browsers, and Android versions above 2.3.

Sounds like browser support got worse then. Say it like it is.

>> We didn't start sketching the blueprints based on what we thought a mobile experience should be - we asked YOU.

Ah, that's the problem then. Design by committee and it shows.

It's fucking worthless (3, Interesting)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 2 years ago | (#42810009)

No thanks. It takes forever to load, it looks like shit, and its generally terrible.

Now take that stupid popup thing that tells me to go to the mobile site. If I want to see your shitty social-web2.1-scalable-turnkey-webdesigner-solution I'll go to the god damn site myself. Whoever wrote this should be ashamed.

Threshold for Classic Discussion System (D1)? (3, Insightful)

jvj24601 (178471) | about 2 years ago | (#42810011)

I still use the Classic Discussion System (D1) and have my Threshold set to 2 (sometimes I reset to 3 or 4 as well). How can I have the mobile site honor that preference?

It's horrible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42810077)

The new mobile site is horrible. On the normal site I can read an article without having to click on the header, go to a new shit page, only to go back because the article is crap.

Whoever thought a responsive design was the way to go doesn't know shit about usability. The new mobile site should be shit canned and left to die.

Just my opinion.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?