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

RE: ISSUE-254 (DDC 1.1): Revision of DDC and Retroactive Effect on BP1 [Best Practices Document]

From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 09:59:50 -0400
Message-ID: <D5306DC72D165F488F56A9E43F2045D30196FD09@FTO.mobileaware.com>
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Jo,

Choosing a version of PNG would be an additional complication, yes.

By not having PNG support among the minimum requirements for mobileOK, you potentially increase the reach of mobileOK by 4% of device types. However, that doesn't mean that you increase the reach by 4% of the population of potential mobile Web users, because the 4% of device types is in the category of devices that few people would consider using to access the Web (unless they had no choice).

So I suppose the question is: what benefit to the mobile Web community (users, developers and content creators) would be created by the requirement to support PNG?

(I've already indicated why we think that few users would be negatively impacted.)

As we specialise in adaptation, it doesn't really matter to us. Whatever your device, you'll get something that works. So we're not really going to be affected by whatever decision is agreed.

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] 
Sent: 23 May 2008 14:34
To: Rotan Hanrahan
Cc: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-254 (DDC 1.1): Revision of DDC and Retroactive Effect on BP1 [Best Practices Document]

Thanks for this useful analysis Rotan.

My personal feeling is that the change is not worthwhile, partly as it 
introduces various issues like "what version of PNG do we mean?". 
However, if people do feel strongly that the DDC should be changed (to 
include PNG at some version, or in other respects) then as I mentioned 
before now would be the time to say so, before entering Last Call for 
the 4th and final (really) time on mobileOK Basic.

Jo


On 23/05/2008 11:19, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
> According to a quick analysis by MobileAware's device support team, requiring mobileOK to include support for PNG would mean that an additional 4% of devices (by type) (*1) would be incapable of accepting any mobileOK content without the risk of getting images they can't display (*2).
> 
> Of course, many of these are older devices and may have long-ago been discarded/replaced, so it's impossible to give any figures for the number of *people* who would be affected, even if you were to factor in the sales volume for each device. Accurate global usage stats are not available. The devices are still in use, occasionally, but generally not for accessing the Web because the experience is usually awful (and often expensive).
> 
> We would not object to the mobileOK minimum requirements being incremented to include PNG support. A mobileOK site that relied exclusively on PNG for its images would still be acceptable to the extreme majority of Web-enabled mobile devices in use by people who (wish to) access the Web. The affected minority of models (comprising around 200) would barely be described as "Web enabled" by their owners, so we don't believe that they would be getting much worse than the poor experience they already get.
> 
> ---Rotan.
> 
> (*1) In our analysis we allowed for devices that can't support JPEG, so are already incapable of accepting mobileOK without risks.
> 
> (*2) Like most adaptation solution vendors, MobileAware has a comprehensive device database, but individual databases will vary. So expect different results if you use your own data. Nevertheless, we think our result is fairly close to accurate.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 22 May 2008 20:07
> To: public-bpwg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-254 (DDC 1.1): Revision of DDC and Retroactive Effect on BP1 [Best Practices Document]
> 
> 
> ISSUE-254 (DDC 1.1): Revision of DDC and Retroactive Effect on BP1 [Best Practices Document]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/

> 
> Raised by: Jo Rabin
> On product: Best Practices Document
> 
> My ACTION-698 has me raising this issue, 
> 
> Fwiw: If we are to revise the DDC to include support for PNG then we are saying that you can't be a Web capable device unless you support PNG. (We already say implicitily that you can't be a Web capable device if you don't support GIF and JPEG).
> 
> If we are to make this change, or indeed any other change to the DDC, now would be the time to do it, i.e. prior to Last Call IV on mobileOK Basic which could be adjusted to suit, if necessary.
> 
> here is the context:
> 
> Back to ADC
> 
>     Jo: agenda is to talk about mobileOK, but before that, I'd like to
>     come back to Jonathan's input on ADC
>     ... The thing is we need to update DDC for BP2
>     ... for instance, support for PNG may be assumed
>     ... The suggestion is BP2 contains a revised version of DDC and
>     reviewed BPs of BP1
> 
>     Bryan: The presence of DDC without saying that it does not limit the
>     best practices of BP2 might lead to confusion
> 
>     Jo: Yes, we need to be clear that it's the minimal delivery context,
>     not the target but the baseline
>     ... If you know nothing about the target, then assume (revised) DDC
>     ... Other than PNG, I don't really think DDC needs changing
>     ... I'll raise an issue on that
> 
>     <jo> ACTION: JR to raise issue of revising DDC and to raise
>     discussion of the revised definition being retroactive to BP1
>     [recorded in
>     [92]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action13]
> 
>     <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-698 - Raise issue of revising DDC and
>     to raise discussion of the revised definition being retroactive to
>     BP1 [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-11].
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 14:00:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC