W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Revised : User rich-content preferences object

From: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:18:52 +0200
Message-ID: <65307430906050618s359a2e65o9937294df4ff5fbd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ric Hardacre <ric@hardacre.org>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
Did you look at CCPP framework for exchanging extended information
about clients?
It allows basically what you need (preference setting), but
server-side, thus without requiring explicit APIs implemented by
browser, that would need to be extended as new features are
implemented on both the platform and the user agent (from
accelerometers to touch screens, from hardware graphic acceleration to
advanced media codecs)

See http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/


2009/6/5 Ric Hardacre <ric@hardacre.org>:
> Response to:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2009Jan/0002.html
>> I haven't done anything with the proposal below. I think it is interesting
>> but I haven't heard any interest from browser vendors so I am reluctant to
>> add such features at this point.
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, ric wrote:
>>> ?FIRST REVISION of original proposal archived at
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2008Apr/0003.html
>>> Author: Ric Hardacre
> Wow, can't believe it's over a year since i first proposed this, I'd like to
> revisit this as it's become somewhat pertinent to myself in the past couple
> of months. I rescued an old laptop and made it into a web-dedicated suring
> machine, it'sa 800MHz Duron with 128MB RAM, wich doesnt leave many resources
> left even after a heavily slipstreamed XP install. I also now have a
> smartphone/xda which tries to send a non "Mobile" useragent string and parse
> the resutling web pages, this is a 500MHz ARM with 128MB RAM.
> So one computer has a 12" screen and full keyboard, the other has a 3"
> (640x480) screen and very minimal keyboard. But due to the specs and the
> capability of the ARM processor they're probably evenly matched. If i switch
> the UserAgent on the mobile browser to one that sites recognise then quite a
> good number will give me stripped down pages, but that's not really an
> option for the laptop.
> So again, at this point i have two choices: the basic "noscript" "no flash"
> internet or the full-flavour maximum caffeine internet. On the other hand i
> can choose to be put into a "full desktop" or "minimal mobile" box if the
> site so chooses. Whereas i believe that if i were better able to control the
> exerience more finely i might be able to surf somewhere in between.
> On a desktop OS, e.g. Ubuntu i have the option of turing off Compiz and
> effects and every single app that i then run respects that and my (orange
> and black) desktop pc with its onboard graphics runs fine. With the web you
> currenty have to choose "full" vs "lite" on every idividual site, or run
> extensions such as adblock and flashblock, with unpredictable results. If i
> were able to simply state, "give me javascript, but not transitions, opacity
> or other effects" then i could use google maps without waiting 2 minutes
> between choosing zoom levels - it would not insist on showing
> mock-interpolated zoom levels (each taking several seconds to scale due to
> the lack of dedicated gfx hardware on either machine) instead it could
> simply do:
> function zoom()
> {
> if( !window.UserPreferences.AllowTransitions )
>  return target_level;
> DoInterpolation();
> }
> ...but still allow me to drag to move around and right-click to set markers.
> Software tends to fill its container and this is true for both bandwidth and
> clock-cycles. The division between mobile and static computing has blurred
> from a black and white one to a matrix of capability vs connectivity. The
> current model of all or nothing can not be made to fit. What if, for
> example, I want to surf in full-fat mode over wifi but in minimalist-mode
> when on EDGE, G3 or GPRS, shouldn't i be able to have my browser "know" what
> connection i'm on (and that the latter is costing me per the KB!) and be
> able to turn off flash ads and videos unless i determindley override it?
> OK, so i think i ranted a bit there, hope it provokes some discussion...
> Ric H (Cyclomedia.co.uk)
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 13:19:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:25 UTC