- From: Brian Fling <brian@flingmedia.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 08:20:54 -0700
- To: Nicolas Combelles <nicolas.combelles@apocope.com>
- Cc: "'Tammy'" <taylortk@verizon.net>, "'Tim Moss'" <Tim@bango.com>, "'Paul Walsh'" <paulwalsh@segalamtest.com>, <public-bpwg@w3.org>
All, I have to echo some of the comments being made, but especially Nicolas comments. I've been reading this discussion for... has it been two weeks now and while I haven't read every single post, this is the first I've seen that speaks to Mobile as another medium entirely, which is something I strongly believe. Regardless of how the technology evolves, more powerful devices, faster networks, consistent display of content, there will always be a small screen and limited input restrictions. There will always be people that just want a phone—that might do some other stuff—driving market factors. While today, we can use techniques like Standards-based design and stylesheets to display the same content on multiple mediums, that approach will never create the best user experience as the content was simply never designed for the medium. This past fall I had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of mobile users at a field study. I can tell you that the mobile user views the medium very differently than the web user, mobile is seen inherently as a communication device, whereas a desktop PC is an information device. The two users have very different goals. While there will always be crossover and many shades of gray, the most valuable mobile content tends to be individual, personal and timely—a communiqué. I believe it is the mobile communities responsibility to advocate the best experience for the user and support creating mobile versions of content whenever possible, not simply making the web mobile-friendly. I think the MWI group is going to keep having challenges separating the line between convergence with the web, being that the W3C is heavily a web focused group, and mobile as a medium. I feel that mobile as a medium has the greatest need for advocacy, education and community support, which I believe this group can accomplish. The mobile community should focus on defining the best practices for the medium first, and work with the web community on best practices to support the mobile experience second. Thanks, Brian Fling e-mail: brian@flingmedia.com mobile: 206/351-6060 aim: brianfling www.flingmedia.com www.mobiledesign.org On Aug 5, 2005, at 1:52 AM, Nicolas Combelles wrote: > > >> I think mobile users are different to Web users as print reading was >> > different to Web surfing. > > Exactly, mobile IS a new media, but a media using "same" IT > technologies > that PC. > > Even print can benefit from web technologies : > You can have specific CSS for print, but this is for "smart > rendering of a > printed WEB page", not to create a magazine ad page. > > So specific "handeld" CSS may be considered to be for "smart > rendering of a > mobile-displayed WEB page". But creating a real mobile-user-centric > application such as weather news or maps, requires more specific > design and > programming, even if it is still using web technologies. > > Understanding these two (with a very blurred fronteer) levels > (acceptable > rendering, and real mobile user experience) is the key. > > Regards, > Nicolas Combelles > Apocope > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] > De la > part de Tammy > Envoyé : jeudi 4 août 2005 05:33 > À : Tim Moss > Cc : Paul Walsh; public-bpwg@w3.org > Objet : Re: Best Practices document - not best practices > > > Not using redundant information on a page doesn't mean it must > deleted or > not used on a mobile Web site, but it is only displayed in it's > rightful > place where it is the main content. I think mobile users are > different to > Web users as print reading was different to Web surfing. > > I'd like to read the working drafts posted below so I can add or > comment but > I don't have access, I was curious if they have already determined a > recommendation for page sizes/graphic sizes for an 'optimal' page > download > wait time. > > I had an optimal user experience: Using my cell phone with zip > entry and a > few clicks I was able to get to a weather satellite picture of our > county > while I was stuck in a building with no power. Most weather sites > would have > taken time/power download all the unused data as well as be > difficult to > wade through all the information. > > Tamara Taylor > > Tim Moss wrote: > > >> I was quite literally talking about visual design, rather than site >> structure which are two different but relevant aspects of 'design' in >> this context. >> There seemed to be an implication that one could just 'drop' or not >> display all the "redundant branding and navigation information" and >> then the site would magically be ok on a mobile device. >> Even if "just" this could be simply achieved what I'm saying is that >> the end result would be pretty horrible, many companies spend a >> lot of >> time and effort getting their site (rightly or wrongly) to look >> right. >> They are not going to follow best practice guidelines that throw all >> of this effort away. >> When I said >> >> "However, in recent years where digital media has been embraced by >> the >> artistic community, there are many examples of sites where the >> style/design *is* the content." >> >> I was talking about websites that have been produced by the >> artistic/creative community, that have no "information" on them; the >> website itself is a piece of electronic/digital art. (thats what I >> meant a bit later by 'particular art form' - art doesn't have to live >> on the wall of a gallery!) >> >> If we we to drop all the 'design' and "redundant branding and >> navigation" then with these sites you'd be left with a blank page, so >> the mobile experience would be pretty poor. >> >> This is an extreme example, but illustrates the fact that the layout >> of the site can add to the user's understanding of it; a site may >> convey more information that just the text on the page. >> >> Going back to Google as an example, google (and surely they know best >> what works for them) felt that, as clean and simple their website is, >> it is still too complicated for a mobile device, and have given us an >> alternative that works better on a mobile. (OK they shouldn't have >> put >> it on a different URL, but then they haven't yet got any Best >> Practices to tell them not to!) You've mentioned several times that >> the MWI is not about adapting content specifically for mobile >> devices. >> One of us must be misunderstanding something. >> For example, the BPWG Charter [1] states: >> The guidelines produced by the MWBP Working Group are intended to >> enable content to be seamlessly adapted across a range of device form >> factors. >> the DDWG Charter [2] states: >> The mission of the MWI Device Description Working Group (DDWG) is to >> enable the development of globally accessible, sustainable data and >> services that provide device description information applicable to >> content adaptation. >> the DDWG homepage [5] states: >> The objective of the Mobile Web Initiative is to enable access to the >> Web from mobile devices. It is envisaged that this will typically >> require adaptation of Web content, which relies on device knowledge.. >> The recent BPWG working draft [2] says: >> This document specifies best practices to ensure an *optimal* user >> experience for people accessing the Web with mobile devices. >> which in practice is very unlikely to be achieved without adaptation. >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/BPWGCharter/Overview.html >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/DDWGCharter/ >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/ >> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/MOK/050727 >> Tim Moss >> CTO >> Bango >> e: tim@bango.com <mailto:tim@bango.com> >> m: +44 78 8779 4032 >> t: +44 12 2347 2823 >> w: http://www.bango.com <http://www.bango.com/> Mobile Content World >> 2005 >> ****************************************************************** >> "Come and see us on stand 14 at MCW 2005 Olympia Conference Centre, >> London, UK 13th - 15th September 2005" >> www.mobilecontentworld.biz <http://www.mobilecontentworld.biz/> >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > >> *From:* Paul Walsh [mailto:paulwalsh@segalamtest.com] >> *Sent:* 01 August 2005 12:05 >> *To:* Tim Moss; 'Daniel Barclay'; public-bpwg@w3.org >> *Subject:* RE: Best Practices document - not best practices >> >> 'What is good design’ is a very interesting topic and one that >> most people seem to get wrong. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >> >> >>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org >>> >> [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On >> >> >>> Behalf Of Tim Moss >>> >> >> >>> Sent: 31 July 2005 09:59 >>> >> >> >>> To: Daniel Barclay; public-bpwg@w3.org >>> >> >> >>> Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Daniel wrote: >>> >> >> >>>> If you're talking about the typically large amount of mostly >>>> >> >> >>>> redundant "branding" and navigation information that >>>> >> >> >>>> typically appears at the top (and frequently left) of pages: >>>> >> >> >>>> That's not a tool issue, that's a page design issue (or >>>> >> >> >>>> possibly a page implementation issue). >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> To many organisations the branding and design of their web >>> >> information >> >> >>> is extremely important, and they spend a lot of time, money and >>> other >>> >> >> >>> resource on these areas of content development. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Some regard the design of a site as irrelevant and sometimes slight >>> >> >> >>> 'design' driven sites as suffering from the flaw of valuing >>> >> 'style over >> >> >>> content' >>> >> >> [PW] Those who regard ‘the design of a site as irrelevant’ don’t >> know what they’re talking about when it comes to creating an >> online presence that will attract and encourage visitors to >> return. These people need to be brought into a classroom and >> taught the basics of how to build a meaningful online presence. >> Tim, I don’t disagree with you; these people do unfortunately >> exist. However, we certainly shouldn’t incorporate this thought >> process when creating a best practise unless we use them as case >> studies for ‘what not to do’ or ‘how not to do it’. >> >> Look at the Web Accessibility Initiative >> <mailto:http://www.w3.org/WAI/> – this is a perfect example of >> another W3C initiative with a huge mountain to climb in terms of >> changing the mindset of web designers (aka content authors) and >> online decision makers. I feel a lot of the foundation work has >> already been done by this group; designers are already >> starting to >> rethink and incorporate these best practises. >> >> Most large corporate websites are driven by marketers/brand >> owners >> who want a 'funky', 'state of the art', 'all singing all dancing' >> website because they think it's necessary to attract visitors and >> stand out from their competitors. In fact, when you ask these >> same >> marketers what their favourite site is, their answer is usually >> 'Google'! Why? Because it's clean, friendly and easy to get the >> information you require. >> >> It has never been proven that lots of fantastic artwork has been >> the deciding factor for a visitor to buy from a site. BTW, >> this is >> a real life example of an Operator Portal in the UK. This same >> Operator is completely redesigning their Portal from the >> ground up >> as they realise the importance to make it accessible and user >> friendly. >> >> Unfortunately creative design agencies are constantly trying to >> create something ‘different’ using technology that they don’t >> fully understand, and they sometimes loose sight of what the >> customer actually wants. >> >> >>> However, in recent years where digital media has been embraced by >>> the >>> >> >> >>> artistic community, there are many examples of sites where the >>> >> >> >>> style/design *is* the content. >>> >> >> [PW] Only if visitors aren’t prohibited from reaching the content >> because of poor design! Don’t fall into the trap of thinking you >> can just resize or adapt the ‘content’ and all will be ok. >> This is >> not true – Web design principles such as logically constructed >> information architecture, ease of navigation, readability, >> consistency, load time, and look and feel are the most important >> factors when building an online presence. >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Why shouldn't these sites be accessible on mobile devices, by those >>> >> >> >>> users who appreciate that particular art form. >>> >> >> [PW] I’m not sure what you mean by ‘particular art form’. But let >> me point out again that people don’t buy from websites because >> they like the ‘art’. The only people who enjoy browsing websites >> for their ascetics are ‘creative’ people who are visiting those >> sites for that reason alone. NB. Websites that have been created >> specifically for people who appreciate ‘art form’ could also >> potentially discriminate against people who need to use assistive >> technologies such as screen readers. This is relevant as we’re >> trying to create ‘one web’ (where possible). >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>>> Designers apparently think users need a link to everywhere >>>> >> >> >>>> from every single page (yes, okay, I exaggerate a bit), >>>> >> >> >>>> instead of just some "breadcrumbs" to show where you are >>>> >> >> >>>> within the site (and/or larger >>>> >> >> >>>> document) and a link or two up toward higher-level pages that >>>> >> >> >>>> provide downward (and sideways) navigation links. >>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Maybe a solution to this is to include (semi-automatically if >>> using a >>> >> >> >>> tool) metadata in the markup that denotes these parts of the page as >>> >> >> >>> being navigation blocks. This could allow the browser software to >>> >> >> >>> choose not to display them with the meat/content. The browser could >>> >> >> >>> perhaps implement some hotkey or shortcut mechanism to allow the >>> >> user to >> >> >>> quickly jump between the navigation and content elements of a page.. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Hopefully the site would then still be usable on a mobile device, >>> and >>> >> >> >>> wouldn't require a complete redesign. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> One of the MWI's success criteria is: >>> >> >> >>> "User community and Industry adoption of the deliverables." >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> I believe that the content industry (mobile or otherwise) is >>> unlikely >>> >> >> >>> adopt the deliverables if it feels that huge amount of redesign >>> >> effort >> >> >>> is required to comply with the Best Practices, when the end >>> result is >>> >> >> >>> design and branding free sites like websites were back in 1996 >>> >> >> [PW] Let’s not forget that we are not just creating a best >> practise for current websites, we are creating a best practise >> for >> future content authoring. We need to assume that some element of >> redesign of current websites will be required; otherwise the best >> practises won’t encourage any form of design improvements. Most >> websites are not built with the small screen in mind, so a >> redesign of most websites will be required ‘today’. In future, >> content authors will not make assumptions about the size of the >> screen and hopefully make the necessary design consideration >> right >> from the start. >> >> Re ‘design and branding free sites back 1996’ – this is because >> the potential of the Web wasn’t realised back then. I had to self >> learn how to build websites in ‘95 so I could teach the trainers >> at AOL in the UK and there wasn’t a great deal of technology that >> created barriers to usability and most people were sceptical >> about >> online marketing. >> >> It’s important to note that the MWI is about encouraging a best >> practise for content authoring where design is at the heart of it >> all. It’s not about how to best squeeze or adapt content >> specifically for a mobile phone. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Paul >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Tim Moss >>> >> >> >>> CTO >>> >> >> >>> Bango >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> e: tim@bango.com >>> >> >> >>> m: +44 78 8779 4032 >>> >> >> >>> t: +44 12 2347 2823 >>> >> >> >>> w: http://www.bango.com >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Mobile Content World 2005 >>> >> >> >>> ****************************************************************** >>> >> >> >>> "Come and see us on stand 14 at MCW 2005 >>> >> >> >>> Olympia Conference Centre, London, UK >>> >> >> >>> 13th - 15th September 2005" >>> >> >> >>> www.mobilecontentworld.biz >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 6 August 2005 09:08:08 UTC