RE: Best Practices document - not best practices

always busy;  and the list had gone a bit quiet so wanted to check I was
still subscribed!
 
The "One Web" concept has indeed, as you say, been the goal of the W3C
for some time - but as far as I can tell its not defined in writing
anywhere what that concept is, as such it is open to interpretation, so
I don't believe for a moment that we all agree on how the "One Web"
concept is interpreted
 
Even if we did all agree, should trying to achieve the ultimate goal and
fantastic ideal of "One Web", totally dominate the initial activities of
the MWI?
 
All of the MWI activities should definitely be steps towards "One Web"
rather than away from it, but a concern of mine is that the mobile
industry will continue to forge ahead at the explosive rate it is doing
so at the moment and that before very long usage of the current "Mobile
Web" (i.e. sites designed specifically for mobiles), will outstrip usage
of the current "Web" (i.e. the web of sites designed for PCs) leaving
the efforts of the MWI in the meantime largely unnoticed, and the divide
between the webs ever widening.
 
  
Don't get me wrong I've very much in favour of the "One Web" concept as
I understand it, but I firmly believe that, as in Tim Berners-Lee's own
words, mobile users should be treated as "first class citizens fo the
Web".  
 
I don't think that concentrating solely on making existing Web sites
more accessible by mobile devices is enough.  That is immediately
treating existing "Mobile Web" sites as inferior, less important, and
second class.
 
There are already over 1.5 billion mobile device users, (and this number
is still growing), and a rapidly increasing proportion of these devices
can connect to the Internet.
 
Are all of these users really going to wait for the existing Web to
become accessible and usable, or will they continue to demand and
consume the mobile specific content that is already available?
Furthermore, will they not expect that mobile specific content to become
richer, and probably more specific to their mobile devices, as the
capabilities of mobile devices continue to accelerate and diversify?
 
The "Mobile Web" as I've defined it above is, in my opinion, evolving
more rapidly than the Web, as the latter has matured and standardised
much more, but has also gained a lot more 'inertia' in the process.
As a result I believe that it may be easier for the MWI to guide the
"Mobile Web" towards the Web with an aim of convergence into "One Web",
than vice versa.
 
In the few years since its birth, Content Providers for the current
"Mobile Web" are already dealing, by necessity, with the issues raised
by their content being accessed by multiple devices of varying sizes and
capabilities, with multiple browser types, and multimodal possibilities.
 
The 'traditional' Web still hasn't managed after a greater number of
years to get its sites working well on just two different browsers (IE
and the Mozilla browsers)!
 
 
 
Maybe a two-pronged pincer-movement attack would be more sensible;
couldn't the Best Practices Working Group recommend practices for those
building web sites wanting to make them more accessible/usable by mobile
users, and at the same time recommend practices for those building
mobile specific sites in order to make them more accessible/usable by
'immobile' users?
 
 
 
Whilst trying to find a W3C definition of "One Web", one of the first
sites I found [1] indicates that others share similar views to those
above.  However, don't believe everything you read on the Internet
though! ;-)
 
Without the support of the user community and the mobile content
industry, the MWI may flounder.  So it is extremely important to get
both of these groups on-board, whereas current activities seem to focus
very much on the 'traditional' Web.
 
 
I feel strongly that agreement on how the "One Web" goal might be
reached needs to be reached quickly by the people driving the MWI and
its working groups, as I think otherwise the MWI potentially risks at
worst  failure before it really gets started, or at least a lot of
unnecessary time and pain trying to reconcile the efforts of those
who've gone off on slighly divergent paths, due to lack of clear,
agreed, direction at the start of the journey.
 
 
 
 
[1] http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008461.html
<BLOCKED::http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008461.html> 
 
 
 
 
 
Tim Moss
CTO
Bango
 
e: tim@bango.com
m: +44 78 8779 4032
t: +44 12 2347 2823
w: http://www.bango.com <http://www.bango.com/> 
 
  
Mobile Content World 2005 
******************************************************************
"Come and see us on stand 14 at MCW 2005
Olympia Conference Centre, London, UK
13th - 15th September 2005"
www.mobilecontentworld.biz <http://www.mobilecontentworld.biz/>  
 

________________________________

	From: Paul Walsh [mailto:paulwalsh@segalamtest.com] 
	Sent: 01 August 2005 12:44
	To: Tim Moss; 'Holley Kevin (Centre)'; 'Daniel Barclay';
'Barbara Ballard'
	Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices
	
	
	Again my comments can be found below. You've been a busy bee
Tim, great to get such debate going :)
	 
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
	> Behalf Of Tim Moss
	> Sent: 31 July 2005 21:27
	> To: Holley Kevin (Centre); Daniel Barclay; Barbara Ballard
	> Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
	> Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices
	> 
	> 
	> Well those who are believers in the strict interpretation of
the "one
	> web"  goal would say that you shouldn't be able to tell the
difference
	> at all.
	> 
	> However, I think that is rather idealistic, and following it
too
	> strictly could end up making the user experience worse in some
cases
	> rather than better.
	[PW] I am a believer in the strict interpretation of the 'one
web' but with an appreciation for how mobile devices work and their
limitations 'today'.  I am completely independent to the two sides of
the coin; Web/Mobile as it appears to be. My belief is to encourage the
'one web' where a site is created once and rendered according to the
device and location accessing it. This is not stating that a mobile
experience has to be identical to that of a desktop PC. It is stating
that a mobile experience should not be created separately unless it's
technically impossible to deliver it once, or where a specific mobile
experience is required. To manage this, we will need to define what the
latter means.  I think the latter is the only part that should be
debated - not 'the one web' concept, as this is clearly the goal of the
W3C and has been for some time.
	> 
	> The Google site works well on a mobile and PC web browser, by
detecting
	> the type of device you are on and redirecting you (if
necessary) to a
	> different URL, www.google.com/wml (on my phone anyway) that
then
	> presents a different version of the content, specific to your
device.
	> This is fine, and hats off to Google for taking mobile users
seriously.
	[PW] Thanks for providing a great example that proves my point.
Google could have created 'one web' that rendered on a mobile just as it
does on a PC.  There are no limitations in design requirements are there
are no reasons why you would need a specific mobile experience. Now you
have a potential issue with version control, thereby discriminating
against one party. Added to this, you have the additional cost of
maintaining two versions of the same content. Why would you want to
create two versions if you could create just one?!
	> 
	> A purist might say this breaks the "one web" principle.  If
you shared
	> bookmarks between your PC and your phone, and try to access
	> http://www.google.com/wml with your PC browser, then you won't
get so
	> far.
	[PW] You don't have to be a purist to see it breaks the W3C
principle - you do however; need to understand this principle before you
can progress with reviewing the standards and best practises that
support it or you (figuratively speaking!) will end up spending all your
time debating everything.
	> 
	> Its not a huge leap from the process that happens above to
redirecting
	> the mobile user to http://www.google.mobi (which thankfully
doesn't yet
	> exist) as this would be an example of breaking the web.
	[PW] What's the difference because I don't see one?  As far I as
can see, two different user experiences have been created when it wasn't
necessary. I don't agree with .mobi because it splits the Web into two
by encouraging the creation of a mobile specific experience (full stop),
but you don't mind this as long as it doesn't have the specific .mobi
domain - what's the difference as I see this as a contradiction in
terms? Without getting into the whole .mobi debate though. Please note
that I expressed my personal opinion only. 
	> 
	> 
	> I may be somewhat biased ;-)
	> but a better, or at least another example of a well behaved
site is:
	[PW] Yes I agree, you are biased. I think everyone who is biased
needs to change hats to ensure we end up with a best practise that
doesn't sway in their favour. Independence is important.
	> 
	> http://wap.bango.net
	> 
	> Once there, if you choose "Search Directory" you can find a
variety of
	> mobile content.
	> Whether you visit this site on your phone, or on your PC
browser, you
	> will receive exactly the same experience.  (Please do try
this!)
	> 
	> 
	> Well ... My last assertion isn't quite true, your experience
may vary
	> depending on your network operator, but that is by design.
	> 
	> Is this the best experience though?
	> 
	> 
	> If you visit
	> 
	> http://www.bango.net
	> 
	> on your phone, you will (hopefully) have the same experience
as you did
	> above.
	> 
	> If you visit this second URL on a PC browser, you will be
deliberately
	> redirected, (whether rightly or wrongly according to the
theory), to an
	> experience that should make the process of finding mobile
content on
	> your PC much easier and more enjoyable.
	> 
	> 
	> I think this illustrates a key question, that I'm not sure has
been
	> discussed much so far:
	> 
	> By automatically adapting the content based on the device
accessing the
	> site, are we in fact restricting the user's choice?
	> 
	> I believe that one of the Best Practices should be to include
on all
	> sites a standard and simple way to allow the user to decide
whether they
	> want to see the 'fully blown' version of the content even if
they are
	> viewing it on a mobile device, or vice versa, to be able to
view the
	> summarised/abridged mobile version of the content on their PC
browser.
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> Take for example the MWI 'homepage' here:
	> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/
	> (I've picked this page purely as an example of a relatively
simple web
	> page in terms of design/layout etc and the amount of
information on it -
	> I'm not saying anything about the quality of it in the context
of this
	> discussion!)
	> 
	> 
	> That page (at he time of writing) contains roughly 5500
characters of
	> text
	> which equates to about 3 'screens' in my PC browser.  As such
it is a
	> nice easy web page to read.
	> 
	> On my phone it works quite well too as the browser will
display about 10
	> lines of text with about 25 characters on each line. The logos
at the
	> top work well, the headings come out in different, coloured
fonts.  The
	> 'News' section comes out in a box with a shaded background and
the text
	> is all in one long narrow column so I can just scroll down to
read it
	> all.
	[PW] I have volunteered to host a focus group to see what the
user preferences really are and this is now an action item. If anyone on
this list is interested in taking part, please let me know and I'll
include you in a separate group.
	> I do however have to scroll through about 20 or so screens to
do so.
	> 
	> 
	> If I looked at this page on my first WAP phone (which had a
monochrome
	> display that showed 3 lines of 15 characters) then it's a
different
	> story.
	[PW] We need to have a cut off point and look to the future
whilst embracing current technology and its limitations. The goal is
best practise for future content authoring. Therefore taking the 'first'
WAP device probably isn't ideal.  As Vendors will tell you, new devices
will be more Web savvy when they see the requirements come in so we
might have an entirely different device type in a year from now. We
don't want to cut off half the world by base lining new devices though,
but we also don't want to encourage content authoring that will render
on a very old model. Look to the future, not just what is available
today.
	 
	> The images wont work, the headings are indistinguishable from
the rest
	> of the text, and to read the whole page I need to scroll
through way too
	> many screens.
	> 
	> In this situation I'd much rather have the choice of seeing a
summary.
	> If there was a link near the top that said 'read the short
version for
	> mobile phones' that linked to an abridged version of the text,
then I
	> may well persevere and read the page, and although I'd clearly
lose some
	> of the fine detail, that is my choice.
	> 
	> On the other hand, if I had no other way of accessing the
page, and
	> needed to know every detail, then I could also scroll rather
painfully
	> through 100 or so screens of text and achieve my goal.
	> 
	> 
	> The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't always best to
try and
	> display exactly the same content on every device.
	[PW] Nobody is trying to say this, as per my previous messages.
	> 
	> Content adaptation could make the experience better for the
user in many
	> cases, but a good 'best practice' would be a standardised way
of
	> allowing the user to override the adaptation decisions made
	> automatically for them, if they so wish.
	[PW] Adaptation is last resort where it's a necessity. I'm
writing what 'one web' means for the MWI (for review) so I will take
into consideration, what it doesn't mean as this appears to be more
confusing.
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> Tim Moss
	> CTO
	> Bango
	> 
	> e: tim@bango.com
	> m: +44 78 8779 4032
	> t: +44 12 2347 2823
	> w: http://www.bango.com
	> 
	> 
	> Mobile Content World 2005
	>
******************************************************************
	> "Come and see us on stand 14 at MCW 2005
	> Olympia Conference Centre, London, UK
	> 13th - 15th September 2005"
	> www.mobilecontentworld.biz
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> > -----Original Message-----
	> > From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org
	> > [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Holley
Kevin (Centre)
	> > Sent: 20 July 2005 21:24
	> > To: Daniel Barclay; Barbara Ballard
	> > Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
	> > Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices
	> >
	> >
	> > Could I ask how we tell the difference between "mobile web"
	> > and "regular web" ?
	> >
	> > Personally I use a mobile device to view "web" pages.  In
	> > many cases I can read what is there irrespective of whether
	> > the target is "mainstream web" or "mobile web".
	> >
	> > Witness http://www.google.com/
	> >
	> > This website displays very well on mobile devices and
	> > desktop-based browsers.
	> >
	> > Regards,
	> >
	> > Kevin
	> >
	> > -----Original Message-----
	> >
	> > =====================================================
	> > This electronic message contains information from O2 which
	> > may be privileged or confidential. The information is
	> > intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
	> > named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
	> > that any disclosure, copying distribution or use of the
	> > contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
	> > received this electronic message in error, please notify us
	> > by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.
	> > =====================================================
	> >
	> > From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org
	> > [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel
Barclay
	> > Sent: 20 July 2005 17:26
	> > To: Barbara Ballard
	> > Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
	> > Subject: Re: Best Practices document - not best practices
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> > Barbara Ballard wrote:
	> > >> I think you missed my point:  It's a bit contradictory
	> > >> (hypocritical?) for a page about best practices for the
	> > mobile web to
	> >
	> > >> not follow best practices for the regular web.
	> > >
	> > >
	> > > If the document is written for mobile web, then best
	> > practices for the
	> > > regular web are irrelevant.
	> >
	> > The document _about_ the mobile web is _presented_ on the
regular web.
	> >
	> > Although good practices for the regular web may be
irrelevent
	> > to the _content_ of the document, they are certainly
relevant
	> > to the _presentation_ of the document.
	> >
	> > Not bothering to understand and follow good practices for
the
	> > regular web in the presentation of that document certainly
	> > does not instill confidence in the content.
	> >
	> >
	> >  > In fact, best practices for the  regular
	> > > web can greatly interfere with the experience on the
mobile web.
	> >
	> > Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you're referring to
	> > common practices that I'd argue aren't good practices (e.g.,
	> > pages or text documents that have widths tied to fixed-width
	> > elements).
	> >
	> >
	> > Daniel
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >