Mobile to desktop version should be a choice the user initiates. Sometimes the user may want the mobile version due to:
1) A focused and less cluttered experience
2) Faster browsing for low-bandwidth users (e.g. laptop with a 3G connection)
3) Ability to fit on a small screen
Whatever the reason, I don't think deciding for your users is right. Let the ...
Sure. Obviously, it would be better to use CSS alone but if you can't, use what you have. Do as much as you can with CSS and use JS as needed. Not sure why you can't change the existing CSS but you can add a style sheet with JS.
//create a new element
var newStyle = document.createElement("link");
//set the required attribute for a ...
If you’re referring to whether or not your site is mobile friendly according to Google then use the mobile-friendly tool.
You can verify whether it has kicked in by searching for your domain on a mobile device and looking for the “Mobile-friendly” tag in the SERP. If you recently updated your site it could take a few days for it to show up.
If you want to ...
Computers, mobiles and tablets can send fax's with software, its just like sending an email, it was added to rfc2086 15 years ago but it never took off and as far as I know no major browsers support href="fax:" they do however support href="tel:" that can be used just the same to send a fax using software.
2.3 "fax" URL scheme
The URL syntax is ...
The important thing to know is that (as stated here) the change only applies to mobile searches:
This change will affect mobile searches in all languages worldwide and will have a significant impact in our search results.
If you do not have a mobile friendly site, your ranking on desktop Google searches should not be affected.
Google may not class it as ...
The current GoogleBot Smartphone agent, as tested with the 'Fetch as Google' Tool is essentially a fake iPhone using a headless Webkit Engine, running on a Linux x86_64 desktop machine.
The default non-responsive viewport width is that of an iPhone at 980px.
With a viewport
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> applied, ...
The best course of action is to use canonical URLs. This avoids a situation where you are penalized for duplicate content.
When it comes to desktop vs mobile websites, most sites will have something like this on their mobile website:
Example for: http://m.mywebsite.com/page.html
<link rel="canonical" href="http://mywebsite.com/page.html" />
Starting April 21, we will be expanding our use of mobile-friendliness
as a ranking signal.
[Update] Please note: John Mueller has just told us that this only effects searches made by mobile users. To quote:
Just to be clear about the ...
In my experience, mobile visitors want the same content as your desktop visitors do. I worked for a travel website with lots of information about hotels and restaurants. The site is generally known for hotels, but we thought that mobile users would be much more interested in restaurant content because they we looking for something when they were out. ...
Google announced that they will start penalizing pages that are not mobile friendly in the mobile search results:
Starting April 21, we will be expanding our use of mobile-friendliness as a ranking signal. This change will affect mobile searches in all languages worldwide and will have a significant impact in our search results. Consequently, users will ...
A responsive layout will also benefit your advertisers so they should be behind you on this.
the largest being 728x90
This should obviously be 100% width on a small screen (and possibly the same for your other "banners"), however, it may need redesigning to work properly on mobile (the height is unlikely to be sufficient if simply scaled down). But, as ...
No. Google does not even prioritise mobile sites on its mobile search. Just search for some big sites like Facebook or Wikipedia - it shows their regular sites, not mobile sites.
That's not to say it won't change in the future. Furthermore, don't forget the user experience: if your site doesn't work well on mobile, users may go elsewhere.
Yes and no. I have a website that has two versions of the site. One for desktop, one for mobile. The mobile website has a fixed viewport of 380 and according to Google's Mobile Ready Test my website is mobile friendly. It also shows up in mobile search results as being mobile friendly.
Google says that a fixed width viewport is accepted but it is not ...
Compress resources with GZIP
This is another one of those things where new technology is being shoved into our faces and some companies and/or tools aren't setup to handle it (such as the Google page speed insights). After looking at the new compression info, it seems only newer web browsers support it.
A large number of tools and web servers still ...
I have remove all "position: absolute" from classes. But that classes were assigned to hidden content what fit fine on smallest smartphone screen, also most of them were not connected to any page element, because elements were password protected.
I found a way to quicker render pages, not waiting long time after clicking "request indexing". First create new ...
The first method (screen.width<=799) is not reliable. On my Android, I get a screen width of 540 when the phone is being held upright (portrait view), but if I turn it on its side (landscape view), I get width=960. Better (maybe still not fully reliable) might be to bounce to mobile if either dimension is small:
if ((screen.width <= 699) || (screen....
It sounds like you've answered your own question. As per Google's documentation, the redirection method doesn't matter, though I must say I too would lean towards using 302 – as your colleague says, both URLs are valid and using 302 is common in other conditional redirect scenarios.
However doing either without using Google's recommended Vary and rel="...
First of all, there's a 3rd option. You can serve a dedicated mobile site on separate URLs, e.g., m.example.com, or you can take an adaptive approach whereby mobile specific content is delivered on the same URLs as your "desktop" site.
Which option is best for users?
From a design and architecture point of view, which is best depends a lot on what your ...
Google's bots do not view a page in any resolution due to the fact they do not render the page as you would expect from a browser, therefor resolution is irevelant but you should aim for standard media queries that support a range of devices. Google's mobile bot will view the media queries you have in the CSS file and estiblish from the Max-width resolution ...
I would say try using media queries first. One method I found easier when dealing with a design that was originally only for desktop was this:
Start with two separate stylesheets. One for the new responsive design, and the other for the old desktop version:
<link rel="stylesheet" media="screen and (max-width: 959px)" href="css/mobile.css">
If a block of content is hidden with CSS, the browser still needs to download the HTML inside that element. All browsers except Opera download the images, too. (In fact, since Opera has switched to Webkit it likely downloads hidden images now.)
One of the best ways to reduce load in mobile browsers is to use background images in CSS (e.g. sprites) where ...
Let the user choose.
Few things are more frustrating than being forced to use a lacking mobile site. Consider allowing desktop users to choose mobile as well -- perhaps they're tethering their laptop to their unrooted iPhone and would appreciate the low-bandwidth alternative for their limited data quota.
I think you will find the first problem case ...
Google allows three different mobile configurations:
Responsive web design
Although there are many advantages to responsive, Google allows any of the three. If Google is telling you that your site is not mobile friendly, separate m. URLs are a perfectly valid way to make it so.
The short version of Google's guidance about ...
It's called adaptive web development. You need to detect the user-agent and serve different markup based on the device.
In PHP, you can use $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'].
You'll want to include this code in order to let Google know what you're up to:
Here's some more info:
The XHTML doctype is for XHTML web pages and, unless you are serving your page as application/xhtml+xml, it ain't XHTML. I'm betting you're not doing that.
Writing HTML as XHTML is called "tag soup" and browsers will ignore what you wrote and do the best they can with it cause it won't make sense to the HTML parser. So that's a waste of time.
In my experience the Google tool is just not smart enough to figure out clever CSS or other techniques you may have used to make your screen mobile-friendly. For example, I have had tables which remove columns depending on the screen width and even used bootstraps "table-responsive", but until I put in a pointless div to style "overflow-x:auto;" it reckoned ...
Bidirectional redirects are good user experience
I would go ahead and implement the redirects, it seems like good user experience to me. I suspect that it isn't always done because:
Mobile sites work on desktops even if they aren't the ideal experience.
As opposed to the other way around where a desktop site is often nearly unusable on mobile.