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

Re: Fwd: updated framework

From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:31:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4898481F.4070408@w3.org>
To: Renjish Kumar <renjish.kumar@gmail.com>
Cc: public-mw4d@w3.org

Hi Renjish

> 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.

Is your "assumption" == a glossary or something else ?
i see the need for a glossary section sure, but for assumptions, i would 
liek to understand that concept ?

> 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.

well, not limited to but at least integrating GSM is a must imho. You 
have a different view. Let's hear what other think. For me, the point is 
to take advantage of 3+ billions of people having access to a phone, and 
  that means for the targeted end-user GSM network only.
It will take times for them to get a higher level of network available.
So we should not limit to GSM, but consider it as part of the common 
LEt's see what other think.

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

Well i might agree or disagree with you depending on what you mean by 
"support web functionalities".
For me, there are two different things:
- where the content is stored: on the web
- and from where the user is accessing the content: the mobile device
So that's our context.
For me, mobile browsing (using a browser on a mobile phone) is just one 
way of accessing web content.
Voice is another way to access web content on mobile phones
Widgets might be a third option
SMS might also be another channel of delivering web content
Java/native applications yet another option.

So in my view, we have ot explore all these options, the requirements on 
the devices, the strenghts and weaknesses,...

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

it does not make sense to me, as what is today sub-100$ would be sub-40$ 
in one year. Even worse, what is 100+$ in some countries is sub 40 on 
the black market in some other.
So i would just consider the technologies available on the device 
(mobile browser, java, sms,...)

> 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.

here again, i tend to have a different opinion. before UMPC will be on 
the field, it will take incrcedible time. So for now, the upper bound is 
more smartphone.
i don't subscribe to "find it difficult to browse web on mobile 
primarily due to the screen size"
this is the wrong point of view. It is hard to browse web content from 
mobile phones. But at the opposite you can make very easy to use web 
content or applications on mobile phones if you take into account that 
you are developing for this platform.
This is imho the visin to take.

> 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.

agreed here. So for me there are already a bunch of tehcnologies 
available on high-end smartphone and that will surely come in the future 
on low-end phones.

> 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. 

i've a slightly different approach:
My approach: There are phones already in the market, how can we exploit 
them to deliver services.
Of course, if there were ip-based UMPC, all services that are available 
on low-end phones will be available, or could be available. but how 
focusing on UMPC and full ip connectivity could have an impact in the 
next 2-5 years in the field ?
I believe this is not the same level of challenges identifications.


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,		
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 12:32:44 UTC

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