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

Re: Fwd: updated framework

From: adesina iluyemi <adeiluyemi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:54:16 +0100
Message-ID: <e6191d690808060154i1e00a7b7r46d02fede82419ae@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stephane Boyera" <boyera@w3.org>
Cc: "Renjish Kumar" <renjish.kumar@gmail.com>, public-mw4d@w3.org
 Dear Stephane,

On the framework, I have a comment.

Under "Develop Resources", I will like to request for information on
critical success factors in implementing mobile/wireless ICT projects in
developing countries.

Adesina

2008/8/5 Stephane Boyera <boyera@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
> denominator.
> 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.
>
> Best
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Dr Adesina Iluyemi
Sustainable eHealth/Telemedicine in Africa
Centre for Healthcare Modelling & Informatics
University of Portsmouth
T: +44 (0)23 9284 6784
F: +44 (0)23 9284 6402
Skype:innovatoris
W: www.port.ac.uk
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 09:47:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:07:08 UTC