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

Re: framework structure proposal - comments

From: Janusz Lukasiak <janusz@eumx.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:36:36 +0200
To: public-mw4d@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080710190152.M95735@eumx.net>

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:17:08 +0200, Stephane Boyera wrote
> >> 3- Stakeholders
> > Add 'internet providers':  pricing, caching etc.
> Well i could add that category, but how internet providers fit in 
> the mobile world ?
I probably should   have said 'telco operators'....
One of the issues mentioned in the first (or one of the first) mail
was a high cost of internet traffic, nationally and internationally.
So unless all the information to/from the mobile phone is going
across the phone operator network only (and not to/from the internet
at large), the pricing of the internet traffic is ONE of the elements
of the total connection cost.

> >> targeting 
> >> people without past ict experience and without technological 
> >> background
> > Aren't we making mountains out of molehills here?  What percentage
> > of internet users in the Western world have past ict experience and/or
> > technological background? 
> so far all the browsers which have been 
> developed for mobile phones have focused on reproducing the exact 
> same look and feel as browser on desktop pc so that people would not 
> be lost. 
Precisely.  There is a good argument for keeping the interface the same
(as far as possible) to make users to face only one learning
curve, not two.

> But are those interfaces really natural on phones ? those 
> who never used a browser on pc, don't care about the similarities. 
We should not assume that people will be using either a PC or a mobile
all the time, that they will never switch (or be switching frequently) from
one to another.  So the similarities are beneficial.

> Do they care eg about the menu ? do they care about the adress bar ?...
There may be a better way of writing a mobile browser than 
slimming down existing ones. But if such  browsers are
developed, its deployment should not be restricted to the 'third world'.
I am strongly against any attempt to create one browser (or any other
software) for 'them' and another for 'us'.
As to the lack of the address bar: a browser without it, is not
a browser in my eyes.  Unless you want to create a 'closed' 
set of internet sites, which you can access only  by e.g. clicking
on 'health', 'fish prices' or 'tomato diseases' icons....
Do we really want to go this way?  Do we really want to make
it impossible to go to any site, even if this may be used by a
relatively small minority of users?

>  there are also a bunch of 
> services around education, health, governments services that are the 
> reponsabilities of government, and for now they are not considering 
> the mobile platform as a potential delivery channel. So they are 
> investing 
> e.g. millions in developing egovernment framework, and developing 
> services to their citizens, without realizing that these services 
> are unreachable by most of their population. So one of our goals is 
> to raise awareness of the pontential of the mobile platform.
Ok, I see your point here.

Janusz Lukasiak
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 19:37:13 UTC

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