A separate mobile website: no forking way

A separate mobile website: no forking way

Karen McGrane warns about the dangers of content forking and tells us that the problem responsive design is trying to solve is really a problem with the CMS

The experience of using a mobile website should naturally be different from a desktop experience – not just visual presentation, content should be prioritised and structured differently. The risk, though, is that you’ll wind up maintaining different versions. News flash: this will be a disaster. Duplicate content. Out-of-sync updates. Wasted effort.

When usability pioneer Jakob Nielsen argued that you should “Build a separate mobile-optimised site (or mobile site) if you can afford it” where you cut features and content “that are not core to the mobile use case", many within the mobile design and development community got out their torches and pitchforks. Seems like people who spend a lot of time thinking about mobile agree that a separate mobile website is “180-degrees backward”.

But what does a “separate mobile website” even mean?

Whether you’re talking about content or code, what you want to guard against is creating multiple versions of your website. It’s called forking, and it’s a forking nightmare from a maintenance perspective. If you fork your website into separate mobile and desktop versions, then you’re stuck updating both of them every time there’s a change. Avoiding this problem is tricky, even with sophisticated content management systems. But before we get there, let’s start with a simple scenario.

Manage content like it’s 1999

Imagine you have a static website that you created back in the late 90s. There’s no CMS, so all the content is hard-coded into your HTML.

You decide that you want to join the 21st century by creating a mobile website. Good for you! Except for the nightmare part, which is that you’ll essentially be creating a totally separate website, and now you’ll have to update both versions every time there’s a change. You’ll need to code two completely different sets of pages: unique templates for both desktop and mobile. And even if – especially if – you want to publish exactly the same content to both versions, you’ll have to maintain two separate versions of the content too. Double your workload, double your fun?

Cut features! Cut content!

Great! You might think. Maybe creating distinct content is actually an advantage! A separate mobile website will still be aces if I don’t want to publish exactly the same information. I’ll cut features, cut content, and re-prioritise what I want to say. I’ll publish a mobile website that only shows a subset of my content, targeted specifically at the needs of the mobile user.

Let’s set aside for a moment the argument about whether or not that’s the right user experience. (It’s not.)

From a maintenance perspective, you’re still forking your content. Want to add a new page?  Edit a description? Fix a typo? You’ll be doing it twice.

But that’s why I have a CMS

The whole point of having a content management system is to help streamline the publishing workflow, right? So of course, you just assume that your current CMS will make it easy to publish content to different channels and platforms.

Jakob Nielsen makes this assumption when asked about the dangers of forking your content:

"I would assume that most industrial-scale sites would be generated from a single backend product database and content management system, with the different designs represented by templates and rules about what information goes into what version."

Unfortunately, today, many CMSes just don’t support this type of multi-channel publishing. Ask your CMS to display similar-but-not-the-same content in different templates according to a set of business rules, and it’ll start spewing out yards of dot-matrix printer paper, beeping that it “does not compute.”

You have a Web CMS

Most CMSes are designed to publish to one and only one platform: the desktop web. In a Web CMS (WCMS), content authoring and management functions are “coupled” with content publishing and display functions. (If you have a large-scale enterprise CMS, it’s likely “de-coupled” and this point may not apply to you.)

Most websites simply don't have a content management backend that will support populating different design templates with different content. Content assets (like text fields, images, and supporting files or media) are usually locked to a specific output format or design. That wasn’t a problem until now, because no one expected the WCMS to have to support publishing to different channels – the desktop web was all there was.

The fact that the WCMS works this way is no mere “implementation detail.” Unfortunately, it’s fundamental to the way content is published on the web today. We’ve got to fix this if we’re going to deliver optimised experiences on desktop and mobile.

Multi-site management

Now, some CMSes do, in fact, support publishing content to multiple templates. It’s called multi-site management, and it’s what allows a WordPress blog or a Drupal site to have separate templates for desktop and mobile content display. Note that says “separate templates”– not separate content. These CMSes still like to publish the same content on both sites. (Specifically, they’re happy when publishing the same “body” or “node” content one-to-one across desktop and mobile. Other content elements, like sidebars or user comments, are often stored in a different location and may be stripped out.)

What these CMSes don’t do (at least not without putting significant effort into it) is support publishing different content to different templates according to a set of business rules. So if your plan is to deliver less content to your mobile user, chances are your CMS isn’t going to make that easy on you. You’re still going to have to maintain two versions of that content, and update them separately whenever there’s a change.

In other words, you’re forked.

Responsive design to the rescue!

Responsive design is often held up as a solution that saves you from having to maintain multiple separate codebases for your front-end code. Put the effort in to developing one set of code that will adapt to different screen sizes and progressively enhance for different device capabilities, and you’ll save time in the long run. You’ll also get out of the arms race of having to support dozens of different devices and form factors.

Responsive design is also an approach that saves you from forking your content. If you have a coupled CMS that can only handle publishing to one set of templates, then you can trick your CMS into publishing to different devices by handling the conversion to mobile or tablet sizes on the frontend.

The decision about whether to develop a responsively designed site or to maintain different templates for desktop, phone, and everything in-between is a pragmatic choice based on how you want to allocate time and resources for development and maintenance. There are good reasons for both approaches – often rooted in the specifics of how your CMS functions – and what works for one organisation may not work for another.

Let’s not get distracted by this debate and lose sight of the fundamental issue, which is how we evolve our content management tools and processes to effectively support multi-channel publishing.

Content mismanagement is the real problem

The hype and the debates around responsive design are missing the real problem. The challenge for most organisations in the long run won’t be maintaining multiple sets of frontend code for different templates. It will be maintaining variations of duplicate content.

Any arguments about whether to deliver less content or different content to the mobile user need to take into account the level of effort that will be required to manage and maintain that content. If you’re going around suggesting that it’s okay to cut information provided to mobile users, be aware that this approach may doom you to duplicate content and governance headaches. Paying attention to this is the very essence of content strategy.

Content strategy for mobile

To provide a great experience on mobile – one that delivers the information users want, and can be maintained internally – we need a content strategy for mobile.

  • Quit thinking you can just guess what subset of content a “mobile user” wants. You’re going to guess wrong.
  • While you're at it, quit thinking your current mobile analytics will help you make the right decision. Today’s crummy, crippled mobile experiences are inadequate environments for evaluating what people really want to do on mobile.
  • Focus on getting all of your desktop content into a format where it can be comfortably viewed on mobile devices, whether by creating a new set of templates for mobile, a responsively designed site, or some combination of the two (say, keeping your current desktop site and building responsive templates to cover the range of phones and tablets.)
  • Once you have all your content on mobile, gradually figure out how to prioritise information differently. For example, your homepage for mobile might be different from your desktop homepage. But base that on real data about how people are using your full set of content on mobile – don’t just assume you know best.
  • If you discover that some of your content just isn’t useful to anyone – it’s outdated,  badly-written, or irrelevant – then take this opportunity to clean it up. Desktop users will benefit too!
  • Fix your CMS. If you’re imagining a future where you can publish different content to mobile vs desktop, you’ve got work to do to make sure your tools, processes, and workflow will support that.

20 comments

Comment: 1

I couldn't be more agree with you. Prioritize content is definitely the solution for both approaches. Thanks for writing your opinion on this matter.

Comment: 2

Sensible recommendations. As a mobile user a good HTML5 form (for the right keyboard) and decent sized [link] targets improve the experience 100 percent. Beyond that?

Comment: 3

Brilliant title! :)

You're a totally right. I'm working at the moment on a redesign of my site and it's a mix of a responsive web design and.... err... forking. I'm breaking my head to find a way to streamline this, because I experience already what a maintenance hell this is going to be. Thanks for this article... perfect timing!

Comment: 5

Karen,

Respectfully, I can't *disagree* with you more. I fully believe that there are definitely specific use cases for mobile websites.

While its true that responsive design works with many websites including blogs and most text heavy sites (e.g. Boston Globe), there are specific common use cases where it's not the best decision.

What determines the best decision? Sales.

So, lets check out leading e-commerce sites. Keep in mind that all of these desktop sites have been refined and have [most certainly] been through multiple iterations via split testing, usability testing, etc. (list from http://www.internetretailer.com/top500/list/)

Amazon - redirects to mobile site
Staples - mobile site
Apple - No mobile site (ad for an app download)
Walmart - mobile site
Dell - mobile site
Office Depot - mobile site

As a matter a fact, its tough to find ecommerce retailers that do have a responsive site.

Here's a challenge. Take a desktop site that's been vetted and iterated through and through (Amazon.com for example), screenshot it and rearrange it for mobile (you can use all techniques including javascript navigation switching, css hiding, etc), and see if you can match the user experience that Amazon's mobile site provides.

My guess is that you cannot.

Furthermore, you state that its a pain to share content between sites. I personally can tell you its easy. If your CMS cannot do this, the problem is with your technology. You should never let technology get in the way of user experience, if it can be helped.

Comment: 6

@mherchel - At no point in her article did she represent a one-size-fits-all idea which everybody should follow. You describe companies who could build a separate experience for 20 different devices and the top executives wouldn't even notice any money missing. You also describe companies where even a minor UX improvement results in millions of dollars of revenue. I think Karen is addressing the other 99.9% of companies out there who simply can't afford to maintain separate web properties... companies which probably aren't even aware of the option of maintaining a single code/content base.

Comment: 7

ExpressionEngine can publish different content to different templates according to a set of business rules. Within the same form for adding/editing entries you could have a field for the desktop page contents and an optional field for mobile page contents. Then in the mobile template you could have conditional logic that shows the mobile page contents field if it has contents and the desktop page contents if it's not. ExpressionEngine can also easily push content to different channels and sites. (I'm sure other CMSs can too; I'm more familiar with ExpressionEngine.)

Comment: 8

Hi mherchel,

Thanks for your comments! Seems like I didn't explain my points clearly enough, so I'll try again.

I'm not opposed to organizations developing different TEMPLATES to display their content. Similarly, I'm not opposed to organizations developing a separate APP. I'm not arguing that the ONLY solution is a responsive solution (in fact, I explicitly say that it's a pragmatic decision grounded in what works best for your particular situation.)

What I am arguing is that organizations should guard against forking their content — maintaining two separate versions of the content without a plan for how to manage and maintain it.

You are correct that companies like Amazon, Walmart, Dell, etc. have enterprise-grade publishing platforms that can support multi-channel publishing, and, as @ryanwheale points out, the people and resources to support it from a maintenance perspective. They're NOT forking their content. Good on them.

Unfortunately, many CMSes (Web CMSes used by companies not listed in the Fortune 500) don't make multi-channel publishing easy. I agree that the technology shouldn't get in the way of the user experience, which is why the very last line of my article encouraged people with this problem to fix their CMS.

And just as an aside — I have talked to e-commerce companies with very complex business rules and transaction workflows that are planning to implement responsive designs. Talked to an executive yesterday at one who said he's "a huge fan of responsive design, it's the future." But, as always, YMMV.

Comment: 9

I totally agree that maintain two versions of a site should be out of question. It is especially difficult for content websites. We have tried to put together a tool which creates a mobile layout but uses content from the native desktop website. It can be accessed at www.langoor.mobi. It would be great to receive feedback and comments from people here on this. Thanks.

Comment: 10

Hi Karen,

yes u are right in form of your answer @mherchel, responsive design is great but just like many other things it’s definitely not the only solution which should be considered while working on a mobile strategy for a website in my opinion too...

But there is a solution in my eyes... - we produce many such sites for small and also big companies here in europe. They are all based on one system! what it means? We use only one content management system (joomla 2.5) for the main site, the same system for social media pages like the facebook fanpage tab, and also from there it goes to deliver the mobile content in a beautyful and bug free and fast loading way...

In a short form: Joomla makes it simple to fit different contents to different areas in different templates to different what ever u need with amazing and over 1ooooo addons like forms or any other useful component basend on html5 and other new technologys...

And the best... - its absolutly quick and cost-efficient. No need to spent there and there and there...

When everyone needs help, or when there is any question, feel free and contact me :-)

Comment: 12

Karen,
thanks for your in-depth analysis of the mobile/non mobile dilemma.
I just want to highlight the fact that modern CMSs like Drupal (that we use for almost 90% of our web projects) are ready to work in a multi-channel environment almost out-of-the-box.

In Drupal, for example, you can use Taxonomies to select the channels you want to deliver a specific content to, and/or different CCK fields to manage different versions of the same content that are tailor made for certain devices/publishing environments.

Probably there's still a lack of best practices on the implementation side.

With everyone talking about Responsive Design I see that people is often trying to bend content to fit their responsive markup/css, while most times properly setting up your CMS to serve the right content to the right device using the right theme is far more cheap and effective.

And then, are we designing for users that are going to resize their browser window back and forth or for "real world" mobile users? ;)

Comment: 13

This is something that's really been bothering me... so thanks for the timely article!

Being based in a multilingual country where multilingual websites are commonplace (I was asked to manage one with 15 languages once...it was stupid), the idea of maintaining different versions of sites fills me with horror.

And working at the small business end of the market where resources are scarcer, this touched a nerve.

I'd also just read this article by the developer of LinkedIn's iPad app http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/02/linkedin-ipad-app-engineering/#s:1-lin... (see the last section on Responsive Design) which got me thinking.

I guess you have to look at each organisation's case individually... Proclamations from 'gurus' are interesting to follow, as long as we don't follow them blindly and engage the ole grey matter as to whether it's actually applicable to our own projects.

Comment: 14

I'm a little bit confused...it seems like you are saying that the problem with CMS's like Wordpress and Drupal is that they don't support publishing "different content to different templates according to a set of business rules". But it also seems like that is a practice you are advising against, and I tend to agree.

Remember when the iPhone came out. Ads: "not just a watered down version of the web, the whole web".

Comment: 15

I always find it humorous when an executive at a company says they are going to do something because they are a big fan of it. That's the big problem with RWD, there's no nay-saying press about it, and only people that tout it as a solution to our mobile woes.

This executive has probably read the hyperbole, has seen that there are 1,001 libraries out there devoted to the concept of presentation RWD. If his site is anything more than content visualization, if it has some complexity and some functionality that should present differently (and perhaps radically differently) on a mobile or a tablet, he'll change his tune.

And Karen -- when you get people saying "I totally agree that maintain [sic] two versions of a site should be out of question"... Well, that's kind of why I wrote the blog that I did.

Comment: 16

There are good reasons for implementing a responsive solution. There are also good reasons for developing multiple sets of templates. There are good reasons for developing a native app. There are a variety of different development approaches one can take, and your choice of what to do with your code is a pragmatic one, looking at the resources you have for development and maintenance, the architecture of your CMS, the type of content and functionality you have to deliver, and many other variables (including your level of religious fervor for one philosophy or another.)

I have no opinion about whether you should implement responsive design vs separate templates (or mobile web vs native apps,) and I have offered no recommendations about which approach you should take in this article. That decision is unique to your situation.

The point of this piece was to remind everyone not to fork their content. Like I said, let's not get distracted by the hype and debates around responsive design, and overlook the real problems with CMS.

Comment: 17

Sorry Karen... have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

I work solely with Joomla as my CMS of choice for my clients and create RWD (responsive web design) templates for Joomla all the time. My own website (http://www.fastnetwebdesign.co.uk) is responsive and is:

> 1 template - not multiple templates for multiple devices
> 1 template, which can cater for the same or different content on the desktop or smaller screen devices

If your content strategy, development/single RWD template strategy is correct, CMS's and a single template can cater for any content strategy! Gathering the requirements from your client, brainstorming the content & designing for "Mobile 1st" & all that...

I agree with @fabiofidanza, that the likes of Joomla, Drupal, Wordpress and other renowned CMS's are geared up for multi-channel environment delivery - either out of the box or by developing templates/themes properly, along with allocating the 'right' things to the 'right' page.

Talking about multi-sites, multi-templates and alike for your content strategy is so yesterday!

Comment: 18

@PhilipLocke: Yes, I agree, one possible option is to use a RWD approach with a single template. That works well if you have a coupled WCMS that doesn't support publishing to multiple templates.

Now I must add the disclaimer that RWD is not the only solution, not universally applicable, depends on your unique circumstances, etc etc etc.

Comment: 19

Nice post Karen. I think there is some real practical advice here. The most important thing that a company needs to consider is: "Who is creating the content for their website?" If it is a non-technical user and you expect them to create unstructured content in your CMS, then responsive design is going to be very challenging. This is because responsive design relies on the content being created in a very specific, structured way – with a heavy usage of advanced CSS, which the majority of non-technical copy writers do not understand. On the other hand, if your site is being maintained by a designer with a lot of technical skill, and the content is structured, then responsive design works very well.

Comment: 20

Just a quick follow-up to my previous comments... People continue to misunderstand RWD as it relates to web applications as opposed to brochure and newspaper sites. RWD is not just about content sizing -- RWD is going to be about abstraction, code management, and using the right methodologies.

See here for more --
http://wp.me/p2brND-8C
July issue on sale now!

The Week in Web Design

Sign up to our 'Week in Web Design' newsletter!

Hosting Directory
.net digital edition
Treat yourself to our geeky merchandise!
site stat collection