Cell Phone Web Browser Stats?

[slaughters]

Anyone know of a site that lists statistics on the most common Cell Phone web browsers?

I have a general feel for what is being used (ie Safari for iPhone, Opera-Mini for other phones) but I can't find anywhere that talks about the details you need if you are a web designer.

What are all the browsers being used?
What is the percentage of use (ie 10% Safari, 10% Opera-Mini, etc..) ?
Which browsers support JavaScript? What level or version is supported ?
Which browsers support CSS ? What level or version is supported ?
How quirky/buggy is their JavaScript/CSS support ?
What are the most common display sizes (320x240, etc..) ?

Isn't it getting a little late in the decade for web designers to continue to blow off these concerns?

For example - I was surprised that there was an "Accessability" forum on Webdevloper.com but not a mobile device forum

[TJ111]

If your site is designed with accessibility in mind, there should be no need for browser statistics for cell phones. An accessible website is accessible from anywhere or anything. Most phones have little or no javascript support, little or no image support, and use their own custom CSS for websites. A good way to see if your page would work on a cell phone is to get the web developer toolbar for firefox, disable images and javascript, and turn on small screen rendering. If you can get around the page like that, you can get around it on just about any cell phone.

[LeeU]

If you want info on developing for mobile sites, check out dotMobi (http://dev.mobi/). They also have a page to test your existing site to see how it would be viewed in a mobile phone. For the most part, however, TJ111 is correct. Otherwise, we end up like we used to do for the different browsers.

[slaughters]

If you want info on developing for mobile sites, check out dotMobi (http://dev.mobi/).....Thanks for the link.

If your site is designed with accessibility in mind,...I just started looking into this and even I have realized that usability is entirely different on a handheld device.

Making a user scroll down past 3 or 4 pages of your "accessible"/degradable navigation menu before they see any content is a horrible user experience.

Requiring the handheld user to fill out a form with long character text fields is a horrible user experience. Lots of people have problems txt'ing on a cell phone so even typing a long e-mail/username to log-in is a pain for them.

Having a cellphone user wait for the download of an image sized for a 1024 width screen when they have only 160 is a horrible user experience.

Letting your web page degrade to the equivalent of a cr@ppy 1990's web site is a horrible user experience.

In my opinion the accessibility argument is just lazy designer talk that is easy on the designer and hard on the user.

Knowing the capabilities of web browsers and coding around their issues is fundamental to understanding how to set up your CSS so it works in the best possible ways regardless of media type (no different than understanding what CSS is supported for print media when setting up a print.css file)

Knowing what JavaScript support there is will help emensly in knowing what approach to take on your page. If there is half a dozen ways of doing something, knowing that one or two will also work for a mobile phone would be a big help.

[TJ111]

The problem is that there are no standards for cell phones. Must phone manufacturers use their own "browsers" with their own settings. Only in PDA like devices will you find some common browsers between them, such as opera-mini. The fact is that unless your creating a site/application specifically for mobile phones, there is no justification for the extra development time required to make your page "mobile friendly" (if you are, then you are taking the right approach).

Most cell phone browsers force their own CSS styles, and ignore website specific ones entirely, to prevent things like you described. Most cell phone browsers have 0 javascript support, in fact the iPhone is one of the first to offer a decent level of support for it. Having forms anywhere that require long input is a poor user experience in general, no one enjoys filling out forms.

Accessibility is not a lazy "the lazy way out", it ensures that your page can be accessed and used by anyone. People with poor eyesight, arthritis in the hand the mouse would be used with, people on cell phones, etc. In fact there was a post recently about how Target was the recipient of a class-action lawsuit for having a site not accessible to blind people.

Having your site "Degrade" to that of a early 90's site is not bad user experience. People on dial-up or people with poor eyesight or handicaps often browse with graphics and styles turned off. The saying "form follows function" applies to web development as well. Making your site functional to everybody is what accessibility means, not developers being lazy. Just because it doesn't look pretty does not make it a bad user experience.
Here's an article (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/biggest-mistakes-in-web-design-1995-2015.html) that is a good reference check for web-design, especially in regards to #1.

Nobody cares about you or your site.

Really. What visitors care about is solving their problems. Now. Most people visit a web site to solve one or more of these four problems:

1. They want/need information
2. They want/need to make a purchase / donation.
3. They want/need to be entertained.
4. They want/need to be part of a community.

Too many organizations believe that a web site is about opening a new marketing channel or getting donations or to promote a brand or to increase company sales by 15%. No. It’s about solving your customers’ problems. Have I said that phrase enough?

[slaughters]

...Accessibility is not a lazy "the lazy way out", it ensures that your page can be accessed and used by anyone....

Having your site "Degrade" to that of a early 90's site is not bad user experience..."can be" accessed does not translate to "will be" accessed. It's 2007 and I don't think that we should be satisfied with just "can be" anymore

It just takes a little work. The dev.mobi site is proving to be pretty helpful.

Interesting article on dev.mobi how layout should change for a mobile device:
http://dev.mobi/node/314

Interesting comparison chart of Wireless CSS (WCSS) to CSS Level 1, CSS 2.1, CSS MP, etc..
http://dev.mobi/node/154

Mobile screen sizes chart:
http://dev.mobi/node/312

[LeeU]

BTW, if any of you get this figured out, we could do with some tutorials over on WebReference.com (we pay!).

[DanielSmith]

There will be a fierce battle between different mobile browser sooner or later.

[Scriptage]

The problem is that there are no standards for cell phones.

Erm...

http://w3schools.com/wap/default.asp

If you stick to using the WML standards the site should render correctly on any mobile browser as WML is based on XML and HTML standards.

Regards

Carl

[TJ111]

Phone browsers are moving from WML support and towards HTML/CSS/Javascript support, that way their users can theoretically access the entire web the way it was meant to be accessed.

edit: The new ajax functionality on the forums is tight.

[Scriptage]

Phone browsers are moving from WML support and towards HTML/CSS/Javascript support, that way their users can theoretically access the entire web the way it was meant to be accessed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_browser

Mobile browsers aren't moving away from WML support but are incorporating support for more advanced and newer technologies.

If you want to keep things accessible then go WML; not everyone has the latest phone.

Regards

Carl