W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mw4d@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Fwd: updated framework

From: Renjish Kumar <renjish.kumar@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 17:18:01 +0530
Message-ID: <ad721fa60808050448t7d9b14cclf74f7a5eaae40925@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stephane Boyera" <boyera@w3.org>
Cc: "atanu garai" <atanugarai.lists@gmail.com>, public-mw4d@w3.org
Stephane, All

A suggestion. Shall we include an additional section for "assumptions" as
done by some of the other groups? Here, we can have explanations on what we
mean by some of the terms such as mobile devices. By doing this, we can keep
the vision statement short and sweet and only have a mention of these terms
and not its explanation.

With regards to the definition of mobile devices:

1. it is true that traditionally "mobile" was defined by "wide area"
access networks such as gsm/cdma-family of technologies. However, with new
kinds of access technologies emerging, I am not sure if we can restrict it
to only gsm/cdma capability. The fundamental parameter here is the "coverage
area". This should define what we mean by mobile. So, shall we define a
coverage area limit instead of naming any particular technology. We should
keep it technology neutral.

2. it is obvious that the minimum capability for any device to be considered
for our work is that it should support web functionalities.

3. cost is an essential factor. Shall we define an upper bound for the cost
of the device? sub-$100 or sub-$40?

4. Form factor is another key factor. Even experienced end-users find it
difficult to browse web on mobile primarily due to the screen size and other
usability limitations. We need to have some upper bounds for this as well.
Definitely not the laptop sizes. But I believe that devices such as the
ultra mobile PCs can be considered.

5. Last but not the least, availability of devices in the market is another
factor. Here, we could consider the availability as available in majority,
available in minority, most likely etc. Note that today's minority may or
may not be tomorrow's majority depending on its commerical viability.

So, in most cases we need to define the lower bound and in some cases the
upper bound.

Regarding the support for voice and sms, a purely internet enabled device
should be capable of providing the same service via IP. So, I do not see it
as a minimum requirement. In fact, going forward, it may be much cheaper to
offer VoIP, messagingoIP than the traditional methods.


On 8/5/08, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Atanu,
> thanks for your comment.
> My view:
> I am convinced type of mobile
>> handsets, networks and connectivity in general may depend on income
>> level, but there are so much of exception to that (15% at least)
>> developing a criteria based on the income level would be difficult.
> if i understand correctly what you are saying, i also believe that defining
> the type of device and infrastructure based on the targeted end-user would
> be a mistake.
> not only these characteristics might evolve quickly in the future,
> deprecating the work we would do, but then we might miss important use cases
> imho.
> For instance, i would not by default exclude the availability of high-end
> phones. I saw few projects developed by ngos which was offering a specific
> phone to a community and a simcard to deliver them services.
> So considering only what is possible on low-end phone is a limitation i
> would not want ot have. Here again, mobile web technologies are available
> only on a small subset of the total phones in the market in Developing
> Countries. But not only this might be relevant in some case, but it is also,
> imho, something which would grow. So if we stick only with what possible
> today for mbile within the targeted end-user population, this would be too
> limiting.
> That said, we have to define in some way what we are considering. we had
> this discussion yesterday mobile phone versus mobile devices, and it is
> clear that we have to define what we are considering.
> I still believe that the range should go from the low-end phone which are
> only voice and sms capable, till the high-end smartphone and not further.
> My view is that a mobile device should be at least GSM capable, with voice
> and sms (this is what is on the market now for most of targeted end-users
> imho, tough i would be happy to get data about that). At the other end, it
> might have extra features that while not present today on the targeted
> population, are available on numerous phones (a JVM, a browser or widget
> engines,...), and would surely appears soon, or might even be available for
> specific communities.
> This rules out imho all equipment not GSM capable (nintendo DS, wifi
> laptop, table PC...). yes wifi or related technologies like wimax will be
> there soon, but before it reach the level of GSM (~90% of the world
> population covered) it will take ages.
> Stephane
> --
> Stephane Boyera         stephane@w3.org
> W3C                             +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34
> BP 93                           fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
> France
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 11:48:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:07:07 UTC