W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > December 2005

Re: URLs and access issues

From: bret douglass <bret_douglass@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 12:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20051223200843.41516.qmail@web54001.mail.yahoo.com>
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Cc: "Daniel B." <REMOVEdanielTHIS@fgm.com>

The primary issue of the thread was whether a single
url would suffice for both normal, http, computer
based web browsing and mobile (whatever form it should
take) web browsing, or whether, possibly, a different
transfer protocol might be called for. I was weighing
in on the side of a single url, and suggesting that
with  appropriately structured stylesheets (and
devices which can properly interpret them) a single
url, a single tp, and even a single web page would be
more than adequate to serve content across the board.

My suggestion was that, given the diversity in
handheld devices, both in terms of screen size, color
depth, and method and ease of interactivity, that the
current, single, valid stylesheet media type of
'handheld' was inadequate. While in retrospect I'll
admit 'wireless' was a weakly descriptive additional
stylesheet media type, my argument stands that more
media types are required. (Admittedly, this is
probably a discussion more appropriate to the CSS
list; hopefully, it will be propagated to that list as

But my point on the thread stands: A user shouldn't
need to remember more than one url; it's bad enough
that in many cases they have to remember whether a
site is in the .com, .net, .org, .biz, .home, .us,
etc. domain, as the initial logic of the master
domains hasn't been particularly enforced. The nuances
of what content to be served depending on the device
it's being served to should be the responsibility of
the site designer, and it's simple logic that a
designer which makes it easier for a user to remember
and access their site will get more hits across the
device spectrum. Requiring additional urls is lazy,
and requiring additional protocols is unnecessary.

As to Wi-Fi, I don't believe that yet falls into the
realm of mobile computing, as one can't join a wi-fi
network, hop onto a bus, and ride across town (or the
state, or the country) and expect uninterupted web
access. Perhaps someday, but for the moment, only
handheld devices such as PalmPilots, BlackBerrys, and
certain cell phones come close to offering this
roaming web access, which (to my way of thinking) is
the thrust of the Mobile Initiative.

In summary, one url, one transfer protocol, more
stylesheet media types.


--- "Daniel B." <REMOVEdanielTHIS@fgm.com> wrote:

> bret douglass wrote:
> > 
> > The sole difference in the source code between the
> > emulations are the stylesheets. The 'handheld' 
> > experience includes all the information in the
> site
> > sans the images; the 'wireless' experience reduces
> the
> > site to the abbreviated address, phone and fax
> numbers
> > and hours for the two sites, the information a
> mobile
> > user is most likely to be seeking. 
> You are mixing the properties of wirelessness
> (connecting wirelessly
> to the Internet) and mobility with being a
> mobile/cellular phone.
> "Wireless" includes cellular phones, wireless PDAs
> (Wi-Fi or other),
> and laptops with Wi-Fi connections (and,
> technically, wirelessly
> connected non-mobile devices).
> "Mobile" includes the same items, except the
> non-mobile ones, of
> course.
> Screen size is (roughly) implied by "handheld"
> (well, when coming from
> "handheld computer," as opposed to _anything_
> handheld, which could
> include phones).
> However, screen size is not implied by being
> wireless or by being
> mobile (consider the multiple wireless devices
> listed above).
> You need some term that refers to mobile _phones_;
> being a phone
> (other than a big-screen PDA phone) is the property
> that implies
> a smaller screen size.
> Daniel

Brett Doelling
2933 2nd Ave Apt 109
Seattle WA 98121


Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
Received on Friday, 23 December 2005 20:15:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:56 UTC