RE: From Raymond Sonoff --- "RE: Last Call on mobileOK Basic Tests [deadline extended!]"

Yes, the correct list is public-bpwg, not DDWG.
 
A single page that would work well for a wide variety of browsers is not generally achievable. One can certainly adapt a single "conceptual" page, so that similar information is conveyed regardless of browser. That's about as close as anyone could really get to the so-called (and much misunderstood) "One Web" idea.
 
Even if you have the ability to adapt your content (and that's what the DDWG hopes to help people to do), one should also consider the general context in which the (adapted) page is being delivered. A person in a mobile context typically wants some focus on immediate needs. The person in the chair in front of a big screen will happily accept much more, including peripheral information that does not have the same degree of focus. (Though we should also bear in mind that the end user may think differently, and so we should find ways to accommodate such cases.)
 
Many commercial providers and open source initiatives can offer solutions with varying degrees of sophistication to enable quality multi-contextual experiences. These would go far beyond the mere "functional user experience" one would achieve by attaining the mobileOK status. I gather that mobileOK is not aimed at those, like Raymond Sonoff, who want to go far beyond the minimal acceptable experience. I think the BP group said this in the document [1].
 
What may be useful is to carefully examine and explain how the tests apply to more sophisticated mobile experiences. What is important is that the response from the site is appropriate to the context. For example, the PAGE_LIMIT_SIZE is set at 10k in mobileOK Basic, but of course this is unnecessary for many current devices. So, if you *know* that the requesting device can handle more than 10k, and the network is fast enough, and the cost is low enough (etc etc.) then sure, have a bigger page. But this is *adaptation*, and mobileOK Basic does not deal with such an advanced concept.
 
The solution: use your adaptation to recognise the automated tester, and deliver to it an experience that conforms to mobileOK Basic.
 
If you are not using adaptation, then you should select the appropriate best practices that will address the widest number of your user community. There are a few such "styleguides", produced by people/groups/organisations who are trying to help others to produce mobile content for the Web, but all have the same issue: in order to have a wide base, the content needs to be significantly simplified.
 
If you don't want "simple", and yet you still want similar/appropriate material to be delivered to a wide variety of devices, then you need adaptation.
 
---Rotan Hanrahan.
 
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070130/#beyond_mobileok
 

________________________________

From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org on behalf of Luca Passani
Sent: Wed 14/03/2007 09:41
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: From Raymond Sonoff --- "RE: Last Call on mobileOK Basic Tests [deadline extended!]"





I suspect you got the wrong list and wanted to post this to public-bpwg.

Anyway, those limits are created to make sure that a BP page is viewable on
low end devices, so you cannot simply raise the limits, or you would make
the page inaccessible to millions and millions of potential mobile users.

Also, I suspect you are being fooled by the one web idea promoted by W3C. No
mobile web practitioners will tell you that one can create a web page that
will work acceptably well on feature phones. You need to create separate
versions: a web site and a .mobi site which complies to a styleguide of your
choice.

http://www.fiercedeveloper.com/story/editor-s-corner/2007-03-13

Luca

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Raymond Sonoff
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:35 PM
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Cc: scsi001@sonoffconsulting.com
Subject: From Raymond Sonoff --- "RE: Last Call on mobileOK Basic Tests
[deadline extended!]"


Tuesday, March 13, 2007 2:20 p.m. EDT

To Whom It May Concern:

SUMMARY:
Listed below are some specifics that I suggest be considered either as
candidates for possible modifications to or extensions of the existing
mobileOK Basic Tests. The specific Web site for which I am seeking to
achieve MobileOK status is at URL address http://sonoffconsulting.mobi/.
NOTE: The top-level "dotMobi" domain's contents will be a pared-down version
of its counterpart, namely: the long-established
http://sonoffconsulting.com/ Web site which was designed to Web standards
and which exemplifies conformance to W3C's XHTML, CSS, and WCAG (priority
levels 1, 2, and 3, inclusive) recommendations on each and every page within
the sonoffconsulting.com domain.

REQUESTS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION:
1. Increase the Page Limits from 10K for markup to at least 20K (preferably
40K), along with a commensurate increase for the total Page Limit to at
least 40K.
2. Allow for accesskey combinations to be used beyond just the ten (10)
numeric values.
3. Allow for incorporating hyperlinks to external (non-mobileOK) Web site's
pages.

SUPPORTING COMMENTS FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE-STATED REQUESTS, RESPECTIVELY:
1. I wish to provide more than a token amount of content to anyone who
accesses any Web site that I develop, refine, and make available to
visitors, users, clients, prospects, or customers to those Web sites.
Providing alternative text, title text, and wanting to offer two Cascading
Style Sheets (one for the screen; the second, for print-related operations
-- as are currently exemplified for all Web pages in the
sonoffconsulting.com domain), the current upper limits are overly
restrictive and something has to be sacrificed (unnecessarily, I feel) to
pass that test element. QUESTION: Why not allow for the multi-CSS
stylesheets to allow for "intelligent word-wrapped" printing as a Web Best
Practice for everyone to incorporate into their Web site designs?
2. I currently employ thirty-six (36) accesskey combinations on the
sonoffconsulting.com domain, and these keyboard productivity-focused
offerings cannot be incorporated into the sonoffconsulting.mobi domain --
even if the present Page Limits were not already a major factor. QUESTION:
Why are only numeric keys supported when mobile device-based productivity
through the use of SmartPhones, PDAs, EDAs, etc. would be an obvious move up
from the basic mobile (cell) phone?
3. I may not be correct on the way that I stated this third request, but it
appears from what I understand or interpret as the status of MWBP Testing
results that external-to-the-.mobi-Web-site-domain pages are expected to be
mobileOK-focused as well, are checked by W3C's MobileOK Best Practices
Checker software, and failure, of course. If this is a correct
interpretation, then I feel that this restriction from allowing hyperlinks
to other Web site's should be removed or in some way modified. The best
example I can give for where this situation seems not to be a reasonable one
is that hyperlinks to sonoffconsulting.com-based Web pages are not
considered acceptable yet they pass the above-stated conditions that reflect
a superset of the mobileOK Basic tests.

QUESTION: Could someone within the W3C community please run with this set of
requests and advise all interested parties as to the merits or reasons for
rejecting one or more of the above requests?

Thank you for your time and attention to this request.

Raymond

Raymond Sonoff, President
Sonoff Consulting Services, Inc.
271 Saxony Drive
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
Bus. Tel. No.:   859.261.5908
Mobile Phone: 859.630.9568

Scsi P&KT Web site URL: http://sonoffconsulting.com/
Gen'l e-mail: info@sonoffconsulting.com
Corp. e-mail scsi001@sonoffconsulting.com

Scsi P&KT Mobile Web Site URL: http://sonoffconsulting.mobi/
Mobile-mail: info@sonoffconsulting.mobi

Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 10:25:13 UTC