W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2008

ACTION-660: Input to BP2, on Personalization

From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:02:18 -0800
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD05D93FED@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "BPWG-Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi all,

This is one of a series of emails addressing ACTION-660. This thread
will address the requirements and recommendations for Personalization in
BP2.

Here is the current editor's draft text in the Requirements and Best
Practice Statements sections:
+++++
2.1 Personalization
Personalization is an important capability in the mobile environment,
given the extra effort necessary to interact with services, and the
limited output capabilities of mobile devices. Personalization increases
the value of content and services to users. However, conventional
methods to achieve/maintain personalization (e.g. user input, HTTP
redirect, cookies) are problematic given mobile context limitations. The
overall goal for personalization in the mobile context is to use
user-friendly methods.

5.1 Personalization
Personalized services should be capable of basing personalization upon
information obtained directly from the user-agent or network entities,
e.g. through HTTP headers or message body.

Personalized services that rely upon manual entry of information should
preserve that information to avoid the need to re-enter it upon each
site access, over a 24-hour period at least.

If the user must be asked to enter account information, personalized
services should simplify what they have to enter, e.g. for email
addresses, assume the domain (if possible) or offer well-known options
as radio buttons.
+++++

[bryan] These three recommendations address the basic ability to
minimize user effort in personalizing services. They should be easily
testable, at least manually. The methods of implementing the
recommendations will be described. Those based upon standards will be
specifically described. Those based upon standard extensions or even
proprietary methods (e.g. for the first, based upon "x-" headers as
typically used by network proxies) will be mentioned generally (as types
of methods, but not with specifics). Either will suffice for compliance
if they result in the general recommendation being met. We welcome
suggestions for other recommendations in this area.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 22:02:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:57 UTC