- From: Bill Gillis <gillis.bill@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 06:51:06 -0800
- To: "Stephane Boyera" <boyera@w3.org>
- Cc: "Arun Kumar" <kkarun@in.ibm.com>, "Kai Hendry" <hendry@iki.fi>, public-mw4d@w3.org
- Message-ID: <6740dcda0811060651n5d11cf68vc3ab3e4fdb139b96@mail.gmail.com>
Stephane wrote: In my own view, operator should provide the pipes, the handset manufacturers should focus on providing a generic platform, and then it should be up to "other parties" to focus on the service side, which would work on all devices, connected to all operators. the "other parties" in my mind are ngos/grass-roots, government, ... Having spent a significant portion of my career as a telecommunications regulator, I have an opinion on this point. Given the great need for innovation in the development of relevant services and the significant financial resources required to do so, we should welcome all, and not put stakeholders into boxed walls. The rapid deployment of lower cost ICT in the developing world requires a more liberalized telecommunications environment. To be successful the market rules of engagement should not be overly structured/managed that it creates a barrier to those with entrepreneurial resources and new approaches to be successful, but of course there must be enough structure to ensure those with market power from preventing others for producing alternative services from being successful. This may be especially so if the handset manufacturers and/or network operators view the deployment of relevant, usable services for the developing population as a serious barrier to creating a market for their product. A partnership with an NGO or government may be the first choice, however, the direct approach could have advantages for a global company(s) that wants a more direct and less expensive route to aggressively pursue the opportunity. BUT what must be watched (and of serious concern) is when a hardware/ software vendor or network operator creates a set of service tools which are not of open standard and tie users to their specific suite of services rather than the customer having the freedom to pick and choose as they desire. The other challenge we have seen in liberalized markets is introducing services for "free" or a low cost and then creating a variety of other fees which must be paid to access those services. This to me seems where W3C is so very important. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi Arun, > great response ! we are in agreement on all points i believe. > Some comments > > > There are essentially two aspects that are getting mixed up here. One is >> the technical feasibility of using SMS, voice etc., while the other is >> usabiity and practicality of the solution. So, I agree with Stephane that >> SMS for browsing the web is probably not the way forward but would like to >> clarify that it is the latter reason rather than technical feasibility >> being an issue here. >> > > exactly. It is doable technically but would not improve at all the domain > we are tackling (providing development oriented services towards > underprivileged population) > > Having said that, we may still need to expand our notion of the Web. For >> instance, the VoiceXML example has come up a couple of times in this >> thread. And though the argument below that voice browsers are stuck to a >> page and do not allow browsing the web is correct, the voice browser need >> not be equated to a Web browser. It is still very much feasible to have a >> Browser with voice as an interface that can have an 'address bar' and be >> used for visiting URLs (i.e. phone numbers in this case) at will. If >> interested, you could glance thru this two page poster paper >> (http://www2008.org/papers/pdf/p1121-agarwalA.pdf) that aims to do just >> that. In fact, we recently submitted a more detailed report on our >> implementation of such a browser and if possible and if there is interest, >> I shall try to make that report available soon. You can also read about a >> voice browsable web at (http:// >> www.soi.wide.ad.jp/project/sigcomm2007/pdf/nsdr41.pdf ) >> > > thanks for the reference > > Completely agree here though if the 'transient phase' is more than few >> years then it might still be worthwhile to invest if the returns can be >> justified. >> > agreed. but i believe this is not the case for SMS. > > > That is correct but I have a slight disgreement to the conclusion that >> seems to be implied here that a regular browser on the phone is the only >> way forward. >> > > I don't have this opinion. i believe it will take long times before would > be able to use a generic browser, and search the web. I believe that we have > to go through a phase or service-oriented access through e.g. widgets. voice > is also part of the picture for long time. > > The first reason is a personal >> observation (in India) that even today few people towards the lower end >> are >> able to own a smart phone. However, while they can sometimes afford such a >> device from a second hand market, they are unable to afford the service >> cost associated with features that require extra payment - i.e. their >> usage >> of the phone is budgeted and they are unable to afford data connection - >> at >> least today. >> > > +1 tough i've the impression that it is a chicken and eggs problem. I > believe that one issue is the return on investment. till people would have > access to services that would really improve their lives, and increase their > income, they would not pay for something (data access) that has almost no > value. So focusing on the content side, is one way to increase the return on > investment. > > The larger and more important problem however, is that most of >> these people (again specific to India and maybe Africa) is that many of >> these are semi-literate/illiterate people and are not tech-savvy enough to >> be able to use features such as browsing -even if it was affordable. And >> changing the literacy and education levels of entire countries may not >> happen soon. >> > > exactly. This is why i believe that one direction W3C will have to > investigate in the future is how to make web content accessible for > illiterate people. There are today multiple directions that are explored. > One coming from the accessibility community, around having a TTS (text to > speech) engine on phones to "read" a web page on the browser, and accept > voice input to forms. > Another direction is iconic languages. > There is a whole domain to explore here. > Voice here again is an interesting option on short term, because already > available. > > Having said all of the above, I would also like to state that it is >> probably not at all important to get into a debate as to what is web and >> what is not. IMHO our goal should probably be how to make information and >> services (and web being the current de facto repository of those) >> accessible to the underprivileged whichever best way (or ways) that come >> up. Mobile Web then becomes the pioneering effort in that space but taking >> all other solutions along for the benefit of the society. >> > > +1 ! > > Cheers > Steph > > >> Hope some of this helps. >> >> thanks and regards >> Arun Kumar >> >> --------------------------- >> Research Staff Member, >> IBM India Research Laboratory, >> 4, Block - C, Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj, >> New Delhi - 110 070, India, >> Email: kkarun@in.ibm.com >> Tel: +91-11-66192100 / Fax: 91-11-26138889 >> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/a/arun >> >> World Wide Telecom Web (aka Spoken Web): >> >> http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_people.nsf/pages/arun_kumar.WWTW.html >> >> >> >> >> Stephane Boyera >> <boyera@w3.org> >> Sent by: To >> public-mw4d-reque Kai Hendry <hendry@iki.fi> >> st@w3.org cc >> public-mw4d@w3.org >> Subject >> 11/06/2008 04:32 Re: >> PM http://www.w3.org/2008/02/MS4D_WS/p >> apers/unicef-w3c-presentation.html >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So VoiceXML has nothing to do with the browsable Web. And you are >>> saying that SMS has also nothing do with with the browsable Web too? >>> >> >> I've the feeling that we are somehow in a rathole. >> it all depends on your definition of browsable Web. >> voice browsers are not generic browser on which you can get any URI >> existing on the web. A voice browser is attached to a specific page >> (like you have a home page) but the difference is that you cannot change >> the uri (no address bar compared to a visual browser) so your browsable >> web is what you can reach from this home page. >> This is the web but with some limitation. >> It is almost the same concept for widgets >> Same concept i see for SMS >> >> Wouldn't it be far simpler if they could send: >>> GET tiempo.bo >>> >> >> well from the user perspective you might be right for you. this would be >> more powerful for you because you believe that you can find the right >> uri to put in, with the right parameters. >> But if you have never experienced the web, or if you cannot use anything >> else to retrieve the information about this URI and its parameter, then >> no it is not more powerful, neither it is easier. I would prefer sending >> an sms with "temperature cochamba" and get the info rather than "GET >> tiempo.bo?type=temperature&location=cochamba" >> >> That said, nothing prevent anybody to develop such a service. >> There are very few chances that this would work based on the limitation >> of sms and the issues i mentionned above. for voice, i did myself wrote >> such an application being able to enter with keypad any uri, and then >> translate the content at the uri in voicexml. I let you imagine what >> kind of output you get, and how usable it is. >> >> Else if people get used to some proprietary text service, how are they >>> to know the source of their information when they go to the Web on a >>> desktop? >>> >> >> errr. that's all the point. this is about delivering services in places >> where there is no web-enable phone nor internet cafe or similar >> telecenter. So this is not for the case that people are in front of >> their desktop from time to time or with their phone. >> >> this will never happen. >>>> neither will happen the development of a very lightweight (text-only) >>>> browser, something i believed in for a while, mostly because this would >>>> >>> mean >> >>> investing in a direction that is not the trend. The trend is 2g, 3g 4g >>>> networks, and full mobile browser. >>>> >>> I don't quite understand your argument. >>> >>> So SMS text responses of URI requests won't happen because people >>> expect the Web to be of the full sort? >>> >> >> What i meant is that you will find nobody to invest money/time/resource >> in developing and setting up something that are just here to solve a >> transient problem. All forecast for now is that by 2015-2020 all phones >> will have a browser, and 3g available everywhere for the price of gsm >> today. So sms would not be a service platform anymore >> >> Steph >> >> >> -- >> Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org >> W3C +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08 >> BP 93 fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 >> 22 >> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, >> France >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- > Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org > W3C +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08 > BP 93 fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22 > F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, > France > >
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 14:51:48 UTC