I'd be interested in hearing more about this, both as a user and a website's owner. I'll be getting a tablet at some point this year; other than tapping rather than clicking, what is different about the way people 'use and interact' with an app that's an alternative for a website vs the website?

I remain firmly in the school of "there should not be an app for every website out there."

Except for linkedin that you just said you were more than happy to go to the website for.

Me? I'm happy to go to a website for all that flash content that iPad users rely on their pretty pretty apps for.....

You can't have it both ways .....:P

sorry to clarify, yes I'd go to most websites over their apps. don't think I contradicted myself there....

I didn't say there should be an app for every website.

I'm saying that it will often be worth redesigning an existing phone app for a tablet, to make better use of the larger screen space. A good example here would be Twitter on the iPad compared to Twitter apps on phones, or Flixster. The tablet versions, for example, are able to accommodate a side menu as well as other main content, which can slide in and out as required.

And that it will often be worth modifying a website into an app. The fact that you are tapping, rather than clicking, is actually a pretty fundamental difference. So things like BBC News, The Times or Jamie Oliver's recipes, or the excellent Fotopedia apps become much more natural and immersive by swiping and tapping on a tablet version, than they are clicking and navigating on website.

No, but I'm not sure you've convinced me there's a need for tablet-sized apps when you already have functonal websites that are tablet-sized.


Sure, apps designed for a phone screen aren't as functional on a tablet screen. I get that. What I don't get is why, given the alternative of mobile phone app or desktop website, there need to be a 3rd option of "customised app for tablet", the absence of which is a 'failing'.


Thanks for the examples, but all you've said is "there's a difference." HOW is it different? What's bad about going to news.bbc.co.uk on a tablet?

To put it another way, if my website doesn't have Flash, why would I consider creating an iPad app for it?

BBC News App for example - there's a screenshot here:

news app

So on the left hand side you have rows of stories, by section. The whole panel can scroll vertically, and each row can scroll horizontally. Tap on a story for it to appear on the right hand side. Tap on the story to take it full screen, and lose the left hand menu. I'm not saying there's anything bad about going to the website, but the app does provide an alternative that is more geared up to a touch screen device.

Or the Flixster app - screenshot here Having a list of films that you can swipe in and out from the left at any time, as an overlay to the film details underneath again seems more tablet orientated than the website, which has a page listing films, where you click back and forth between pages:

flixster.com.

Or The Times newspaper, where you can swipe from story to story, or bring up a carousel of stories along the bottom of the screen. Again, more suited to swiping and tapping than traditional website navigation.

You might not be bothered by any of that, but they are undeniably good examples.

Thanks for the explanation.

No problem. I had assumed some general familiarity, given how quick some people are to be dismissive.