On many websites when you access them via a mobile phone you find a link in footer that links you to the desktop version of the site, sometimes vice-versa (UX.SE does both). However, if your site is well made I see no reason why this link is necessary. In fact the whole reason for a mobile site is to optimize the desktop version to work on a smaller screen so you would essentially be linking to a worse user experience.
Why did this trend come about, and more importantly should you still do it?
It is necessary if you have different versions of the website for Desktop and Mobile.
For example, a lot of websites scrap out features that might get too complicated to be operated on Mobile. For example, Facebook's Mobile version does not feature all of its settings.
It is also possible that a large tablet which can process a webpage faster like a Desktop gets recognized as a Mobile.
In the above cases, it is necessary to switch to the desktop version for simply accessing the scrapped out features from the mobile website OR to experience the Web version on a device that can process the entire page as quickly as the desktop.
Instead of making two versions, it is much better to design a website that's Responsive without compromising features and experiences for multiple screen sizes, in which case there is no separate Desktop and Mobile site and no need to switch between them.
Personally, I think such an option is essential.
For two reasons:
Primary Reasons for Desktop site's necessity can be summarized in 3 bullet points:
Limited Working Features (while still working on full feature roll out)Rich ExperienceThe trend came about with the advent and early popularity stage of mobile sites ~10-12 years ago, because most mobile sites started out with a sub-set of the main site's features. eg my banking app would show me my balance and let me transfer between accounts, but wouldn't let me transfer money to other people or manage direct debit/standing order type activity. Banks and other enterprise grade software usually have to carry the tech debt for years because the legacy system beneath, which would have huge cost of replacement. And such systems were never created for Mobiles. A link to the desktop site was the only way to complete some functionality.
There was also an element of the fact some of the technology was new and relatively experimental - sometimes, that means it goes wrong, particularly in the relatively fast moving world of mobile, and with the number of different devices, operating systems etc. Sometimes it's better to give your user access to the clunkier-but-working desktop version, rather than make them fight it out with a buggy menu system.
Nowadays it's much less important as we're a lot better at being consistent in mobile interfaces, they tend to be just as feature rich as the desktop equivalent, and the technologies are much more mature. However, there's still the fact that if the user is used to the desktop interface and just wants to "get something done" they may prefer to switch to the desktop interface, rather than re-learn the mobile site just to do one task. On StackOverflow, for example, I've pretty much learned my way around, but the iOS app is pretty new to me.
At the end of the day, you're only giving your users the option of using the desktop site, it does very little harm having an unobtrusive link somewhere down in the footer to allow the few who want it, to have it.
I turn my phone sideways and it has higher resolution than my desktop. When you optimize for 320x480, and a tiny device comes along with over 2500x1400, there are going to be issues. The mobile version of most sites almost invariably is the worst UX. (--Worst UX for me, personally. I mean, obviously there are people who like the mobile versions, which is why it they persist, but there are many who don't.--)
You can't plan for everything, just for a lot of things. But you have to plan for the unplannable. Everyone makes mistakes. And a lot of mobile-friendly plans get trashed by the mobile devices. Let people make their own choice about whether they want your cutesy bubbly Duplo-block style mobile design, or the normal hard-edged, full-fledged, zoomable, dependable, familiar site, that works alright if they just turn their phone sideways.
px. Yea, it's still slightly physically smaller than the same CSS px you'd see on a 1920x1080 24" desktop monitor, but only marginally so. As a rule of thumb, one should design for these device-independent pixels and let the browser scale according to user preferences.
Well sometimes the mobile version of the site lacks content that is only available in the desktop version. This is often done to save bandwith (lower quality of images or exclude some elements completely) and eliminate visual clutter. Users might want to see that content from their mobile devices, so providing an link to the desktop or full site is suggested.
Another argument in favor of retaining the mobile/desktop link is that users might be accustomed to the desktop version of the site and on mobile its different so they prefer the desktop version.
In Don't Make Me Think, Revisited, Chapter 10 deals with mobile usability. Steve Krugg states the following (emphasis mine):
Always provide a link to the "full" Web site. No matter how fabulous and complete your mobile site is, you do need to give users the option of viewing the non-mobile version, especially if it has features and information that aren't available in your mobile version. (The current convention is to put a Mobile Site/Full Site toggle at the bottom of every page.)
There are many situations where people will be willing to zoom in and out through the small viewport of a mobile device in return for access on the go to features they've become accustomed to using or need at that moment. Also, some people will prefer to see the desktop pages when using 7" tablets with high-resolution screens in landscape mode.
Yes,
If desktop users are shown a different version of the site. This is a usability issue. I have seen so many sites that do not display properly on small screens or that do not serve the same content. (usually 'quickmenus'/reduced to content allegedly 90% of users want, not me!)
Why did this trend come about?
For developing websites there are three major approaches toward how they are developed*:
Responsive Web Design (RWD) is where a site is designed in a way that it changes to fit whatever screen size it is rendered on. From a technological standpoint, media queries are often used so that the site changes automatically. For example, what might appear as three columns in a wide browser window could turn into a single column when the window is narrowed.
Adaptive Web Design (AWD) is where a site is designed in a way to use different features or different content for different devices. From a technological standpoint, media queries may be used, although they tend to depend on the actual size of the screen rather than the current size of the screen. Often device detection is used as well to change behaviors. For example, what might appear as three columns on a laptop with a wide screen could be rendered as a single column on a smartphone with a smaller screen.
Separate sites is where the server (and sometimes client) changes which website is rendered based on the device that's making the request. From a technological standpoint device detection is often used along with some other indicators, such as query string values to override default behaviors. Additionally this is what leads to the m.example.com URLs when viewing/linking to a "mobile" site instead of a "desktop" site.
should you still do it?
This question starts to be opinionated, and different people will have different opinions as to what the right behavior is.
My opinion is that RWD is the correct approach for the majority of websites, with AWD being appropriate for some applications, particularly where features are significantly different** such as with a keyboard and mouse compared to a touch screen for a drawing based web-application.
If you're using RWD, the content and feature set should remain identical (or at least congruent) and given that there is no separate mobile site, it is impossible to link to a "desktop site" because there isn't one. It's the same site.
If you're using AWD, the content and feature set should remain similar, but in some cases it may be necessary to provide a means to access the "desktop" experience. Feature detection can only do so much, and you may happen to use a small touchscreen device that has a keyboard and mouse where you want the "desktop" experience. In these situations it's appropriate to allow the user to toggle the behavior. This may not mean an actual link to the "desktop" site. This may be simply allowing a toggle between touch screen controls and keyboard/mouse controls.
If you're using separate sites, it is appropriate to allow users to toggle between which site they're viewing. Not allowing a user to view both versions of a site starts to enter into legal grey areas as well. Consider an article that has a sidebar that lists open job positions. If that sidebar is only rendered on the "desktop" site and you don't provide an equivalent listing for the mobile site, mobile users could claim that you're discriminating against them.
tl;dr:
Links to "desktop" sites are only necessary if you actually have a difference in content and functionality between "desktop" and "mobile" versions.
If you don't have two sites, and you're not hiding/showing content to users on different screen sizes, then there's absolutely no reason to use such a link.
* Be aware that there is no standards body to govern the exact meaning of the terms I'm using, so you may have differing definitions or use different jargon for the same concepts.
** although it's possible to combine the two approaches
It was mostly used for "m.websites" (ex: m.cnn.com) which are already off trends and slowly fading away.
m.website are basically the same copy of your website with a different URL. You will be feeding content to 2 websites at the same time ex: m.cnn.com and cnn.com have duplicates in content with different screen optimisation.
The m.website has many pitfalls, it will be affecting how google indexes your website. The responsive websites came as a solution where you don't have to worry about the screen wether its a desktop, tv, tablet or mobile screen. The content will adapt to any screen size and will make your content easy to maintain and delivered across all platforms.
If you are designing a responsive website, the option of adding "View Desktop Site" is useless since you cannot technically switch between versions. The website has one version only unlike the m.websites.
I agree with @JonStory where if you have both sites, there is no reason to not offer the option of visiting the full desktop site. Especially if technologies are potentially in place that mobile cannot utilize (Java, Flash).
On modern sites with Mobile-First development, there is potentially no reason to have a desktop site (ex: Bootstrap sites generally).
For sites transitioning to responsive formats, a desktop site makes sense. Good modern sites skip the "desktop" version and the link entirely.
Possibly not even if there's a difference between your sites. At least if your user-agent handling works properly.
Example: SE on Android mobile has a "full site" link at the bottom. I only realised that when I went looking for it to post this answer.
The browser's own menu option for "request dekstop site" is easier to find for two reasons: the menu is accessible without scrolling to the bopttom of the page; it doesn't move depending on the whim of the site designer. It's also usefully always available even when the site pops up a "download our app" screen. This is all based on Firefox for Android; Chrome was similar last time I looked as is Dolphin on a tablet.
As others have said, the trend originally came about because of the way full sites were ported to mobile devices. Early on, people were taking established sites and scrunching them down to work with the mobile technology and save on bandwidth. This meant changes in resolution, orientation, and browser capabilities. Features would often be removed along with whole portions of content.
Nowadays, proper development practices (mobile first, cross-browser compatibility, responsive design) should eliminate the need for a 'view full site' option.
To me, including the 'view full site' option is about one important UX concept. You give the user control of the experience. Your mobile site could be a model of best practices but I may still prefer to work with the full site. If that option isn't available I'm going to get frustrated and potentially leave your site rather than go find a browser.
There are 'request full site' options in the iOS, Android, and Microsfot browsers which is an interesting development but, you're still dependent on your users to know about that option and know how to use it.
Providing the familiar 'view full site link" bottom-center on your mobile version is a good practice for now.
I think this is done when a site's desktop version is well established, and they are "grafting on" a very different mobile site, perhaps developed by a different team.
Either because the website Is The Product and is extremely well evolved and tuned, with many internal stakeholders, and they can't afford to break stuff (think Amazon or Yahoo homepage)... or because the Web team was told "Get a simple mobile site up fast" and that was the most expedient way to do it.
The desktop team is tasked with maintaining the full-featured flagship product, and only tunes it only to make it not viable for the most robust mobile platforms (deFlashing).
The mobile team is tasked with supporting as much of the world of "mobile" as possible, including iPhone 2's, Blackberrys, "feature phones" etc.
Even so, I find many sites have things you Just Can't Do On Mobile, period, either due to gating (forced diversion to mobile site) or requiring desktop-only interactions (mouseover, drag file into, etc.)
Ironically, the most robust mobile sites are actually simple sites like phpBB which don't even realize you're on a mobile device.
My own preference is the latter, since I sure don't have staff to maintain two web sites. Make the main site simple enough it plays well on smart phones, and is still non-awful on desktop. Of course this throws feature-phones under the bus.
Yes it is necessary. Having Desktop site is good if the mobile site is not working in any case or if the user is unable to get the exact flow of activities.
Now a days as mobile users are increasing, every site should be responsive enough which will remove this option of "Desktop site". Now if a particular site is made separately for mobile and desktop (which should not be done in practice) due to any technical limitations, then this option should be present.
I think some people have over-analysed this question. The answer in my view is always 'no' and there are 2 simple reasons for this:
If it's a repsonsive website then there's effectively no such thing as a 'desktop version' which negates the question. The responsive layout should work in a way where elements are rendered appropriately to the device but it's still a single website and does not have different versions.
If you have separate desktop and mobile websites (e.g. on 2 different sub-domains) then these have obviously been created for a reason. The reason being that a mobile device may be more limited in it's capabilities, screen size, interaction method - than a desktop device. Effecitvely it's been built because it's not possible to reliably and easily use the desktop version on mobile.
So the answer in both cases is 'no'. Desktop and mobile devices are very different and unless you've got a fairly minimal or basic site the chances are it won't work as well on Any Given Device(TM).
Yes,
You can use a Bluetooth keyboard with most mobile, and some smart phones allows the display to be sent to a TV or monitor. So you don't know if a smart phone is being used with a small touch screen.
Also mobile versions of sites often have bugs in them..... (For example the mobile version of gmail stopped working on my smart phone for a few weeks.)
One more reason: The user might not actually be using a mobile device currently, but might just have been following a link posted by someone using the mobile site.
(Of course, this only applies if your site actually has different URLs for mobile and "desktop".)
