- From: Gillis, Bill <bgillis@wsu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:22:11 -0800
- To: "stephane boyera" <boyera@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-mwi-ec@w3.org>, "Venkatesh Choppella" <choppell@gmail.com>, "Taugher, Colleen" <colleent@wsu.edu>
Stephane, This is a good question. I will give you my perspective, but I am sure there are other views (and better ideas) on this question as well. I tend to think there is no single category of entity that can represents the interests of the developing world. Even on a continent such as Africa, there is such a multitude of "constituents" which vary from country to country and even within nations. Perhaps the best that is possible is some strategic sampling. In general I don't think NGOs or "governments" necessarily are in a position to provide the full picture of user needs, although it certainly is a start. Ideally you would want to reach as close to the actual end beneficiary as possible. I think this was discussed in Bangalore....but I do agree it may be very useful for W3C in collaboration with an NGO, local university and/or government organize a "field workshop" to which W3C members with interest would attend, but with presentations being primarily from local innovators in the use of technology that may go somewhat deeper and even closer to the ground than the very excellent workshop in Bangalore. Perhaps most important would be time for local tours into the rural areas to explore on-the-ground applications. You might consider issuing an RFP to NGO organizations asking for their creative ideas of how such a gathering might be most effective and who should be involved. Along these lines, if resources could be identified, I think some on-the-ground survey research of knowledgable people within the developing country context would be a very valuable addition to the information base that would be needed. Just some thoughts. bill -----Original Message----- From: stephane boyera [mailto:boyera@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:57 AM To: Gillis, Bill Cc: public-mwi-ec@w3.org; Venkatesh Choppella; Taugher, Colleen Subject: Re: White paper on the potential next steps on mobile web in developing countries Hi Bill, Again thanks a lot for all these ideas and potential direction to follow, that's a very valuable discussion for me. Just a question. You said : > within your workplan I would suggest you consider a role you might > play in connecting those the industry interests that have contributed > to W3C to additional direct input from the developing world > constituents. I completely agree here and this is my exact plan. That said, after few years working within the mobile web initiative, i've quite a clear ideas about who are players and who have interests in participating in this work. However, being quite new in this area, i would be happy to know who you think are the "developing world constituents". Is it NGO or organizations like yours (CBDD) ? is it local governments ? is it local research centers ? i don't have a strong view about who, qualitatively, are the best contacts to get input and would be interested in participating in such a joint initiative. Cheers, Stephane Gillis, Bill wrote: > Stephane, > > In my view you are doing important work. While a bit redundant from > my previous correspondence, I do believe one of the greatest > contributions W3C can provide at this point is continuing your long > advocacy of the basic principle of universal access to the web > regardless of chosen platform, desired applications, culture, > language, physical ability and so forth. With respect to a workplan I > recommend this provide the foundation of your "advocacy" for > improvements in usability and relevenace of the so called mobile > technologies for the developing world. Because the cultural/economic > context in which small handheld wireless handsets are used in the > developing world may be quite different than from the > cultural/economic context in which these technololgies are being > created for the market dominant sectors of the world, continuing to > lay the foundation for highly affordable universal web access achieved > through "mobile devices" is a gap in which nobody other than W3C is > better positioned. Specifically, within your workplan I would suggest > you consider a role you might play in connecting those the industry interests that have contributed to W3C to additional direct > input from the developing world constituents. This could be achieved > through strategically designed workshop held in developing world > settings (assuming you could get good participation from industry > representation) or also could be achieved through systematic research > approaches that would collect better information on the > cultural/economic context of the developing world's application of > "mobile technologies". > > Again, I think your papers are an excellent start. > > bill > > -----Original Message----- > From: stephane boyera [mailto:boyera@w3.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 2:21 AM > To: Gillis, Bill > Cc: public-mwi-ec@w3.org; Venkatesh Choppella; Taugher, Colleen > Subject: Re: White paper on the potential next steps on mobile web in > developing countries > > Hello Bill, > > First of all, thanks a lot for your great contribution. > Lots of very interesting thoughts on the relative importance of > mobility, and the importance of not forgetting the other options like > laptops. It also answers some of the questions i'm often getting about > why we would need any specific work in this area compared to what's > currently going on within the mobile web initiative. > I think that i'm sharing your view on most of the topics and i tried > to express some of those ideas in my recent papers. > That said, i still have myself problems in translating this vision > into an effective roadmap or work program. > For instance, i completely agree when you are saying that the debate > on handset should be irrelevant. We have been advocating the idea of > universal access since early days of w3c, within initiatives like WAI. > The current work in MWI is following the same vision of one Web. > However, observing the current situation, i've the feeling that a work > is needed to enable minimal web functionalities on handsets. How to do > that, what are those minimal functionalities to have rich web > applications should be discussed imho. You are right that defining > these functionalities to enable affordable, simple and rich web access > is probably independent of the device (a phone, a laptop, a tv ...) > but i've the feeling that to achieve some results as soon as possible > we have to bet now on the most promising horse, which is for me now > mobile phones. > For me the question is to have a better, clearer view of what should > be next actions that could move ahead and make this vision a reality. > Cheers > Stephane > > Gillis, Bill wrote: >> Stephane, >> >> I enjoyed reading your most recent iteration "The Mobile Web to >> Bridge > >> the Digital Divide"...very valuable contribution in my view. >> >> You characterized in your 2 March 07 e-mail a debate: >> >> "there is nothing to do, just wait one or 2 years and then the >> average > >> mobile phone in DEveloping countries will be the same as the one we >> have today in the developed world" >> >> VS >> >> "we should not expect the same process taking place in the developed >> world (as of today, almost nobody in eg europe have a phone older >> than > >> 2 or 3 years, and with very low capabilities ) to append in the >> developing world because of the grey/second hand market or because >> people would focus on products aimed at their market (cheap and >> reliable for hte specific condition). So we should expect to fit with >> the specific devices existing in the developing world." >> >> In my view one of the primary goals should be to make this debate not >> relevant. I can think of little evidence to support there is a >> future > >> where people around the world will be accessing the web in the same >> way, with the same devices, and for the same purposes. That in fact >> is not a world of communication equity, but one where technology has >> dictated opportunity/access to digital capability rather than the >> needs of "people" which vary greatly from place to place and culture > to culture. >> There seems to be an assumption that simpler solutions which make >> potential applications on "lower end" devices are inferior to higher >> end "newer" technology that offers richer experiences. Particularly >> at this phase where for a significant portion of the world is new to >> the the entire concept of digital communications, implementing >> strategies that rely on people around the world having "new state of > the art technology" >> (or at least only being one generation behind?) sets us up for > failure. >> Especially if the "new technology" while much richer in communication >> potential adds complexity and cost. >> >> In my view, the greatest role W3C can play in this evolving global >> opportunity is to advocate the greatest equality of access to web >> based applications across multiple devices...that is people should >> not > >> be "left behind" because they are unable to afford or do not have >> access to the latest devices and people should not have to have the >> newest devices to benefit richly from web-based technologies. >> >> Another small observation is that the apparent driving force of the >> spread of mobile technologies in the "developing world" may be quite >> different than in the "developed world". In fact the term "mobile >> technology" has a bit of a developed world bias in my view. The >> value > >> proposition of handheld wireless devices in much of the developed >> world hinged significantly on the mobility that those devices offer. >> But I would observe, that these devices are for the most part >> supplementary communication devices not full replacements for >> laptops, > >> PCs and fixed line communication. For example at the recent W3C >> Mobile Web workshop, most all of us had our laptops out and active >> even though we had cell phones in our pockets. My sense in the >> developing world, is that the value proposition driving deployment of >> mobile communication technologies may be much more affordability. >> Mobile phones can be purchased more cheaply than laptops or PCs and >> the wireless communication systems supporting those devices are less >> expensive to deploy and more quickly than the fix wire option. But I >> am not convinced for many first time digital users on the other side >> of the divide, the reason for a focus on "mobile web" is actually > mobility. >> I mention this for two reasons: 1) if my assumption is correct, the >> value proposition driving technology development in the dominant >> market responds to a very different consumer need than what is >> typical > >> on the other side of the divide. Consequently, there is no >> particular > >> reason to think the current evolutions of technology are responsive. >> It is quite appropriate in my view to think about a different >> category > >> of appropriate technololgy to respond to a need for "affordable and > simple" >> but rich access to digital capabilities. One size should not fit all. >> Also I think as W3C moves forward with this initiative, it will be >> important you don't lose track of other PC-based solutions as >> well...It may be that technology will continue to evolve in a way the >> PC's (or >> laptops) will continue to be less expensive and battery storage >> devices will continue to leap frog in development in ways that these >> devices ultimately provide the low-cost rich application solution >> that > >> is desired by many on the other side of the divide. These >> technologies in combination with very inexpensive digital storage and >> play devices can be very powerful tools. I really don't know this to >> be true or a reasonable possibility, but I think caution is >> appropriate to not rule it out one set of technology solutions in > favor of a different one. >> That is, the basic principle for people on both sides of the digital >> divide is that we should aim for policies and standards that allow >> them to access a rich array of digital opportunities using the means >> that is best for their own indiviudal situation and cultural context. >> >> Again, many thanks for advancing the debate. >> >> bill >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-mwi-ec-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-mwi-ec-request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of stephane boyera >> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:44 AM >> To: public-mwi-ec@w3.org >> Cc: 'Venkatesh Choppella'; public-mwi-ec@w3.org; >> jan.chipchase@nokia.com >> Subject: Re: White paper on the potential next steps on mobile web in >> developing countries >> >> >> [removing people from the to or cc who are in public-mwi-ec@w3.org >> list, just keeping Jan and Venkatesh who are not on the list. If they >> wish to be on it, they could drop me a mail] >> >> I've the feeling that there are 2 separate discussions here, and each >> one is important >> >> - About handsets and technology >> The few messages i read on this subject here are reflecting the two >> major opinions i've been facing within W3C and also discussing with >> other organization. The 2 positions are : >> >> there is nothing to do, just wait one or 2 years and then the average >> mobile phone in DEveloping countries will be the same as the one we >> have today in the developed world >> >> VS >> >> we should not expect the same process taking place in the developed >> world (as of today, almost nobody in eg europe have a phone older >> than > >> 2 or 3 years, and with very low capabilities ) to append in the >> developing world because of the grey/second hand market or because >> people would focus on products aimed at their market (cheap and >> reliable for hte specific condition). So we should expect to fit with >> the specific devices existing in the developing world. >> >> Personnaly, i've no idea who is right and what is the right approach. >> If analogy would work, then looking at other products may help. Eg >> for > >> cars, one travelling in the developing world would understand that >> the > >> timeframe for new cars to come to the developing world is perhaps 20 >> to 30 years, and even after that time, there is still half of the >> cars > >> which are from the older cycles. But i'm pretty sure, we can't >> compare > >> the two markets. >> >> So eventually, i think that to have an idea on which of the two >> options we should bet to build on, it is very important to gather >> datas on what are the characteristics of eg 80% of the phone in eg >> few > >> countries in south-east asia, africa and latin america. >> >> If somebody has an idea on how we could proceed to gather such datas, >> i think it would be of primary importance. >> >> >> >> - About services and audience >> >> It think here the discussion triggered by Ken is a bit different. >> Since i started working on this subject about a year ago, i think >> that > >> i have this approach : what are the needs for the population ? That >> said, if i agree that the point is not to provide web access to rural >> communities or under-priviledged population, i don't think that we >> should oppose technology vs social approach. >> I think this is the 2 parts of the same approach, and we should >> tackle > >> the problem by both ends. my view is that by providing technologies, >> you >> >> trigger needs : that sounds like liberal consumerist view, but this >> is >> not: example : who thought that sms may help rural communities before >> we >> >> saw the first applications providing services which are really >> useful, > >> help people and imporve their daily lives ? nobody it think. >> Now, i'm understanding that people are saying : well we have voice >> and > >> sms service and this is enough to provide minimal services. >> I agree that we can do something with such technology, but i do think >> that enabling a better technology, the web, would allow people to >> answer >> >> needs in a better way, or more approprietly. In few words, my view is >> that yes we should work on understanding the needs, and seeing how we >> could answer them with existing technology, and at the same time, we >> should also working at enabling better technologies for better > answers. >> So work for a better today and also work for an even better tomorrow >> at the same time :) >> >> (if people are interested i wrote a paper i will present at >> ist-africa >> 2007 conference in hwich i'm exposing my view on why i think the >> mobile web is a better technology than sms : the mobile web to bridge >> the digital divide ? >> http://www.w3.org/2006/12/digital_divide/ist-africa-final.pdf ) >> >> >> 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
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 21:22:25 UTC