We’ve done a wee update to MIR

If you’re from Scotland, you say ‘wee’ when you mean ‘little’ in English. It’s just a thing.

So we’ve done a wee update to Mobile Industry Review. Have a look and let us know what you think.

To set your expectations, it’s not revolutionary. It’s a work in progress.

We’ve dumped the scrolling features. Whilst it was nice, I resolved that it wasn’t cutting it. I didn’t get a sense of what was featured ‘immediately’. I had to sit and wait for it to scroll through.

So that’s gone. In it’s place, three feature images:

I’ve also added a little feature box on the far right containing a few relevant bits:

The rest of the site stays broadly the same although I’ve reduced the number of articles on the frontpage before you have to click ‘previous’.

Plus I attacked the code like no-tomorrow. There were quite a few unnecessary scripts and stylesheets loading — all meaning that the site did take a good few seconds to render. Last night I counted about 7-8 sounds for the frontpage to load. This morning? 2-3 seconds.

Better.

But certainly not complete. If you’ve got any ideas or suggestions for the next update (probably this week or early next week), let me know.

About Ewan

Ewan is Founder and Editor of Mobile Industry Review. He writes about a wide variety of industry issues and is usually active on Twitter most days. You can read more about him or reach him with these details.

, , ,

  • http://womlanka.com mack005

    And dumped the Google FRIEND CONNECT also :-)

    I notice a small flaw, that is the page does not fit the screen, i mean vertically.

  • http://whatleydude.vox.com James Whatley

    Yeah man, what he said – it's vertical not horizontal.

  • http://womlanka.com mack005

    Oops! I meant horizontally, sorry for the confusion :)

  • http://whatleydude.vox.com James Whatley

    Yeah man, what he said – it's vertical not horizontal.

  • http://womlanka.com mack005

    Oops! I meant horizontally, sorry for the confusion :)

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    Agree with it not fitting the screen – make it about 850 wide.

    K

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    Agree with it not fitting the screen – make it about 850 wide.

    K

  • http://www.mobileindustryreview.com Ewan @ MIR

    It was 990 previously. That's good feedback. I'll sort it out.

    What rubbish monitor resolutions are you guys using? 1024×768?

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    LOL :)

    Make it 850 in a centred column – works well for everyone. 1024 x 768 is still 'bog standard' – so ner ;)

    K

  • http://www.mobileindustryreview.com Ewan @ MIR

    It was 990 previously. That's good feedback. I'll sort it out.

    What rubbish monitor resolutions are you guys using? 1024×768?

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    LOL :)

    Make it 850 in a centred column – works well for everyone. 1024 x 768 is still 'bog standard' – so ner ;)

    K

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    Meant 950..

  • http://www.mobileindustryreview.com Ewan @ MIR

    Ah that's not so bad!

    2009/1/13 Disqus <>

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    Meant 950..

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    Agree with it not fitting the screen – make it about 850 wide.

    K

  • http://www.mobileindustryreview.com Ewan

    It was 990 previously. That's good feedback. I'll sort it out.

    What rubbish monitor resolutions are you guys using? 1024×768?

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    LOL :)

    Make it 850 in a centred column – works well for everyone. 1024 x 768 is still 'bog standard' – so ner ;)

    K

  • http://www.mobileindustryreview.com Ewan

    850???? You're squeeezin' me!

    2009/1/13 Disqus <>

  • http://www.mobileindustryreview.com Ewan

    Ah that's not so bad!

    2009/1/13 Disqus <>

  • http://www.kcjhdesign.co.uk Kip Hakes

    Meant 950..

Switch to our mobile site