There are two ways to have a mobile friendly site – a mobile website or a mobile responsive site. Believe it or not, there is an argument among web-developers as to the merits of each.

A Mobile Site

This type of website is the earliest type of mobile sites. This is a different site with content specifically designed for mobile viewing alone. It would often have its own URL such as m.domain.com, while the full site will be at www.domain.com. Companies like Yahoo! utilised sites like these. This site may have a totally different look and feel from the original website, unless a lot of care was taken to create both sites similarly.

A mobile site tends to load faster because the content is specifically designed for mobile devices. You also have full control of the elements of the design so you can have the look and layout specifically the way you want it, regardless of what the main website has.

The drawback to the mobile site is that you have two different sites, with different code-bases. If you need to make changes to the main site, then the developers may also need to make changes to the mobile site, and in some cases, the developers may be different. You may end up having different experiences on both because of that. Also, it becomes more costly the more changes that are required.

A Mobile Responsive Site

A mobile responsive site is a website that automatically adjusts parameters to suite the device viewing display size. So you may have code within the main site that adjusts the layout of your dividers and size of your fonts as the screen size goes down.

A responsive site has the same look and feel as the main site, because it is the main site; it’s the same design elements, only formatted for a different screen. Because of the adaptive nature, the screen can be adjusted for multiple screen sizes, so one layout for desktop, another for mobile, and another for in-between devices such as tablets. Maintenance is easy because it’s only one code base that is being maintained, and only one developer is usually required.

The disadvantages of the responsive site are that is takes longer to load than a mobile site, and more expensive to develop initially. The site takes longer because it’s the main site being loaded and then resized and laid out on the screen. And because a responsive site takes more time to develop, the cost may be higher, but it will be cheaper to maintain.

Another disadvantage is that you have less control of the layout for different screens. For example, if you have a search for your side in your sidebar for a desktop display, on a mobile the search bar may be at the bottom, which may not be effective.

The Skinny

This website has a mobile site. If you view it on a mobile screen, it’s totally different to the main site. To be honest, I only found out about the mobile responsive site when redesigning my personal website – www.sachinganpat.com. If you view that site on a mobile, you will see it looks almost the same, just all the elements one under the other. If you re-size the browser you will see how the elements move to fit it.

So what should you do?

If you cater mainly to mobile users, then it may be worthwhile to have a mobile site, however, given the breadth of devices browsing the web now, plus the bandwidth speeds and capabilities of these devices, having a mobile responsive site is the best way forward.

It’s also important to note that Google has stated that mobile responsive sites should be the preferred choice of web designers. So if you’re into Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), then that’s added motivation.

If you can’t change your site right now, don’t make it a problem. Most mobile browsers try as best as possible to allow web content to be viewed. It’s still a good practice to check how your website is displayed on the different screens.

Your website is your image, and you want to look good no matter what.

Original article: Two options to pick from.'">Choosing your mobile web site? Two options to pick from.

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

The insurance industry is based on risk and a person purchasing insurance does so based on all of the possible costs that may be incurred based on the probability of the risk occurring. So someone may spend the $50 to buy some accident insurance that has a probability of 1 in 100 happening that can may incur a cost of $1000.

Now securing IT is also based around the cost that may be incurred based on risk of an incident occurring. So for example if I have a piece of equipment that costs $500 that holds data that is worth $500, then I may spend $50 to secure that $1000 worth of equipment and data from a risk that has a 1 in 100 chance of happening.

Do you notice any similarities? Of course!

I may have oversimplified a few things, but the concept is basically the same.

The only thing to consider is that in insurance, they only insure you against the risk of something happening; IT security on the other hand puts mechanisms in place to minimize the risk of something happening.

With insurance you must take appropriate steps to prevent what to avoid it particular accident from happening, while with IT security, you’re spending money to reduce the risk of a particular threat happening.

The thing with IT security, as with insurance, is that you may never eliminate a risk. You may spend thousands and millions of dollars and still a risk may remain. But if you look at the similarities of IT security and insurance it doesn’t stop there.

Another way in which they are very similar is the way that they are sold. Have you ever been sold insurance before? I have, and I personally hate insurance agents! Insurance agents sell and fear uncertainty and doubt – FUD. They sell with statements such as, “You must think about your family,” or, “What would happen if you are sick or an accident happens and you are unable to work; how are you going to support them?”
They play on fears and appeal to your darkest emotions.

IT security vendors play a similar game. They also use FUD to put buyers in an uneasy and uncomfortable position where they believe that their risk is much greater than they may perceive it to be. This is one of the reasons that I hate sales pitches from IT security vendors.

Now don’t get me wrong, I believe that IT security devices are an important part of protecting an enterprise environment. But what I also believe is that a lot of people overestimate what is required to protect their environment and, in some instances, underestimate what they should be protecting.

IT Security is not as simple as just throwing technology in there and thinking that you are protected.

IT Security involves a full holistic approach with technology, your people and executive management to bring a certain level of awareness and behaviour that will ensure a secure environment. However many businesses don’t look at the people aspect and use too much technology for their IT security needs, often based on the advice of the same IT security vendors.

Take my advice and take everything that IT Security vendors say with a tablespoonful of salt.

I understand that having a lot of IT Security systems in place helps you feel comfortable and secure. But just as you can have too much insurance, you can have too much IT Security systems.

And too much IT Security systems can have the opposite effect of what you are trying to achieve. More on that point in another article.

Original article: Two sides of the same coin'">IT Security and Insurance Two sides of the same coin

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.