W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mw4d@w3.org > June 2009

Re: new updated roadmap available

From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:15:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2541F5.60204@w3.org>
To: Raphaël Dard <Dard@intracen.org>
CC: "public-mw4d@w3.org" <public-mw4d@w3.org>
Hi Raphael & All

> Your exchange suggests an important aspect. If the group is working on
> "mobile web for development", I guess we also need to have a small
> section on:
> - General issues/challenges the mobile solutions can/should address (in
> the development context),

you mean answering a question like why mobile is a potentially 
interesting tool in development ?
this could go in the introduction with some other topics
- why ictd (why ict is important in development)
- why mobile as the ict platform

or, this could go in a "background" section just after the introduction.
comments ?

> then, 
> - Specific advantages and challenges of each mobile technology (i.e.
> SMS vs GPRS, etc.)
> should indeed be closely linked with
> - Major challenges for developing and accessing mobile services. 
> Here we need to remember that we talk about a long list of countries
> and almost as many specific contexts (including within countries
> themselves, urban/rural, etc.). We may want to categorize contexts in
> order to point to adapted/suitable solutions.

humm, i'm not 100% convinced that we should identify specific context.
i believe that context in countries are evolving too quickly and are too 
different for us to exhaustively list them, or define some that are 
meaningful at large scale.
For me the context is a set of data that only the service 
provider/developer knows
- profile of the targeted end-user (are they illiterate ? are they 
speaking/reading languages supported or not by the platform...)
- available infrastructure: gprs/3g, stable or not,...
- devices available: in some case the service provider can choose the 
device (if e.g. willing to serve a small set of users) in some other it 
is what's available in the pocket of people.
- type of services and condition of use (instant service or not, 
connected or not,...)
So, in my mind, i see that the service provider defines his own context 
and some of the characteristics have entries in the challenge section 
(e.g. illiteracy) and some in the technology section (type of required 
devices and infrastructure for a particular tech.) and then based on the 
delivery context the choice of a particularly technology with particular 
design and implementation choices are adopted.

> Finally, typing content into the road map will reveal to us what
> structure makes more sense. Maybe we could also make use of internal
> document links?

sure. this is what i'm doing for now. we had discussions last time that 
allow me to complete some of the section.
This discussion also brings new idea and content for some sections.

> Steph, what process would you suggest, so that we make the best
> collaborative writing effort?
> I know that wikipedia (mediawiki) has a discussion page attached to
> each article and it seems to do wonders. Maybe you could create such a
> page (roadmapv2-discussion), so we centralize all the discussion points?
> Multiplying and dispersed emails seem less efficient.

personnaly, i don't feel the need to track that down with online tools. 
I've more the problem of triggering discussions, so for now, i see just 
one thread going on, not a big deal to manage.
my way of working is that i'm writing down on my own todo the point that 
need to be resolved during next call. i could surely create on more page 
attached to the roadmap to write this list and track resolution ?

> Last point to share, I found that "subscribing" to
> http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/roadmapv2 is quite useful as I am
> told (by email) when changes have occurred in the page.
good point. I'm also subscribed to it. so anybody interested to follow 
the evolution could subscribe indeed.

> Cheers,
> Raphaël
>>>> Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> 02/06/2009 10:04 >>>
> Hi Renjish,
> Thanks for your comments. my views:
>> Shall we bring in the technology section before the challenges?
>> By this, we can summarize the status quo on available technologies, 
>> tools etc... and then discuss the challenges (which includes the
> market 
>> and technology challenges), most of which you have listed.
> That sounds indeed reasonable. Let's hear what other people think.
>> I presume that the conclusions section will discuss the potential 
>> directions to be taken? Can we have this as a separate section before
>> conclusions and then keep conclusions as a more general and brief 
>> summary of the key items in the document?
> In my view, the direction to be taken would appear in both technology 
> and challenges section.
> Particularly, in the challenges section, for each identified item, when
> possible, we might be able to propose workaround that possible today in
> specific cases, and more long term R&D or standardization activities. 
> e.g. for illiteracy and content in local languages, possible options 
> today is to either use trusted intermediaries (e.g. VPO) or to use 
> non-textual channel such as voice. On more longer term, the association
> of menaingful icons with voice annotation is a potential direction to 
> follow. so that's why i propose that future directions to be explored
> in 
> each challenge. and also in each technology when appropriate. e.g. in 
> voice, availability of fully standard-compliant free and open source 
> voice browser, or definition of usability guidelines are challenges
> tied 
> to a specific technology and should appear in the releated section.
> best
> Stephane
>> Regards
>> Renjish
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org 
>> <mailto:boyera@w3.org>> wrote:
>>     Dear All,
>>     as promised, i worked a the new instance of the roadmap i
> presented
>>     during last call.
>>     I tried to integrate the resolution and discussions we had last
> week.
>>     For those who were on the call during the may 18 call, please let
> em
>>     know if i forgot some stuff.
>>     The new version is at
>>     http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/roadmapv2 
>>     i prefered to create a plain new uri. i put a deprecated flag on
> the
>>     previous one (http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/roadmap )
>>     and link the new one from the wiki MW4D home
>>     (http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/MW4D ) and the Mw4D home
>>     (ressource section) http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/ 
>>     all comments are welcome, and we will continue discussion during
>>     next call (June 8)
>>     Cheers
>>     Stephane
>>     -- 
>>     Stephane Boyera         stephane@w3.org <mailto: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,		
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 15:15:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:07:09 UTC