[jase_coop]

"In other words why not a mobile site.

Well, very simple. The iPhone is capable of rendering and interacting with the full page. It was the first browser to do so - it don't require a lite version. You could tap, zoom, pinch, drag and get the full depth of the page. Other browsers - like those for Nokia, RIM etc couldn't handle that."

That's your main reason for not having a mobile site?

In terms of usability, zooming in on a mobile device to click on a website designed for a desktop browser is a nightmare. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It results in a horrible experience.

Poor excuse, poor design.

[donohoe]

  That's your main reason for not having a mobile site

No. I never said that. We do have a Mobile site. If you're not going to read the comment please state tl;dr so I can save replying and just go to bed.

I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like.

I am also adding: We did find that a larger chunk of users preferred the regular Homepage on their iPhones and did NOT want to go to the Mobile version.

Side note:

  In terms of usability, zooming in to click on a website designed 
  for a desktop browser is a nightmare. Just because it can be done,
  doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It results in a horrible
  experience.

Agreed. It wasn't done because it could be done. You may not like this choice. However, this wasn't about what you or I or the Times wanted, this was about our readers and what they wanted.

NOTE: I keep saying "we" as in the Times and I. I don't work there any more but the strongest force in the universes is still the force of habit. Apologies.

[jase_coop]

That justification is more acceptable, but still a poor excuse (which doesn't sound like your fault), and if anything highlights the problem with the focus of user-centered design.

I'm sure you'd agree, design isn't a democracy. Clearly, your users are wrong.

[barrkel]

Mobile sites suck; I detest when I get redirected to them on my Android phone. About the only time they are justified is when the site is heavily dependent on mouse hovering and other desktop-centric interaction idioms.

[brown9-2]

the problem with the focus of user-centered design.

Wait, what? Why is this a problem? Who else should the design be focused on but the user of the site?

If the users are wrong, who is right?

[jase_coop]

"I said: because the iPhone has a very very advanced browser that is more than capable of handling our Homepage we do not REDIRECT them to the Mobile site automatically. You can still go there if you like."

My point still stands. Just because Apple give you the choice to pinch and zoom doesn't mean that's the way it should be.

The fact you already have a mobile site but choose not to put it to its full use baffles me even further.

[donohoe]

Please re-read my response. I said it is what our readers wanted. Readers. Sometimes your audience isn't always right and you have to deal with that and show them the way (like Apple), but was not one of those cases.

To re-iterate: OUR READERS WANTED THE HOMEPAGE AND NOT THE MOBILE SITE ON THEIR IPHONES.

[MatthewPhillips]

Personally I dislike it when a site redirects me to some mobile version (often breaking the permalink and sending me to the main page). I think a URL should render the same no matter what browser it is being viewed from.

[brown9-2]

As a NYTimes reader and an iPhone user I am very happy they do not redirect me to the mobile site. I avoid sites that do this in Mobile Safari.

I'm curious as to who you think is supposed to have the final say on "the way it should be".