PerRock
Engineer
The point of a responsive site is that you do not have a "mobile" site and a "main" site. It's all literally the same site. Because of this, you cannot (ok there are ways...) realistically roll out only a mobile upgrade and keep the main, it's all one thing.I don't think there is much opposition to replacing the previous mobile site. The old mobile site was far too limited and the new site will be an objective improvement there. I also agree that having both sites using similar designs and templates is an obvious benefit. However, inadvertently trashing important desktop website functionality as part of the upgrade process has made it more difficult for me to plan and purchase a trip with a currently unusable account credit. Better to deploy to the mobile side first, where the affected volume and severity of impact is likely to be substantially reduced, and then replace the primary site later after any migration problems are resolved and everything is functioning properly.Yes, the old site had a mobile version, but it regularly did not work & had very limited information. It also was a completely different website. In the new "mobile" site, you have all the information the "main" site has, but displayed for a smaller touch screen. As maintenance goes, they only have to change something on the "main" website & because the "main" website is the "mobile" website that change is reflected there.
If they wanted to change the navigation bar from "Destinations" to, say, "Stations" they only need to do it one place (since it's all the same file) and the change is reflected on the other "versions" of the website.
ps. After writing my fun fact below... A better way to think of it as "formats" not "sites."
Fun fact, if your screen is narrower than 1000px then you'll get the Tablet formatting, narrower than 690px, you get the Phone formatting; anything wider than 1000px, and it the standard formatting.
peter