RE: Best Practices document - not best practices

I was quite literally talking about visual design, rather than site
structure which are two different but relevant aspects of 'design' in
this context.
 
There seemed to be an implication that one could just 'drop' or not
display all the "redundant branding and navigation information" and then
the site would magically be ok on a mobile device.
 
Even if "just" this could be simply achieved what I'm saying is that the
end result would be pretty horrible, many companies spend a lot of time
and effort getting their site (rightly or wrongly) to look right.
They are not going to follow best practice guidelines that throw all of
this effort away.
 
When I said
"However, in recent years where digital media has been embraced by the
artistic community, there are many examples of sites where the
style/design *is* the content."
 
I was talking about websites that have been produced by the
artistic/creative community, that have no "information" on them; the
website itself is a piece of electronic/digital art. (thats what I meant
a bit later by 'particular art form' - art doesn't have to live on the
wall of a gallery!)
 
If we we to drop all the 'design' and "redundant branding and
navigation" then with these sites you'd be left with a blank page, so
the mobile experience would be pretty poor.
 
This is an extreme example, but illustrates the fact that the layout of
the site can add to the user's understanding of it; a site may convey
more information that just the text on the page.
 
Going back to Google as an example, google (and surely they know best
what works for them) felt that, as clean and simple their website is, it
is still too complicated for a mobile device, and have given us an
alternative that works better on a mobile.  (OK they shouldn't have put
it on a different URL, but then they haven't yet got any Best Practices
to tell them not to!)
 
You've mentioned several times that the MWI is not about adapting
content specifically for mobile devices.
One of us must be misunderstanding something.
 
For example, the BPWG Charter [1] states:
The guidelines produced by the MWBP Working Group are intended to enable
content to be seamlessly adapted across a range of device form factors.
the DDWG Charter [2] states:
The mission of the MWI Device Description Working Group (DDWG) is to
enable the development of globally accessible, sustainable data and
services that provide device description information applicable to
content adaptation.
the DDWG homepage [5] states:
The objective of the Mobile Web Initiative is to enable access to the
Web from mobile devices. It is envisaged that this will typically
require adaptation of Web content, which relies on device knowledge.
The recent BPWG working draft [2] says: 
This document specifies best practices to ensure an *optimal* user
experience for people accessing the Web with mobile devices.
which in practice is very unlikely to be achieved without adaptation.
 
 
 
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/BPWGCharter/Overview.html
<http://www.w3.org/2005/01/BPWGCharter/Overview.html> 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/DDWGCharter/
<http://www.w3.org/2005/01/DDWGCharter/> 
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/ <http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/> 
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/MOK/050727
<http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/MOK/050727> 
<http://www.w3.org/2005/01/BPWGCharter/Overview.html>  
<http://www.w3.org/2005/01/DDWGCharter/>  
<http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/>  
 
 
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 12:05
	To: Tim Moss; 'Daniel Barclay'; public-bpwg@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices
	
	
	'What is good design' is a very interesting topic and one that
most people seem to get wrong. 
	 
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
	> Behalf Of Tim Moss
	> Sent: 31 July 2005 09:59
	> To: Daniel Barclay; public-bpwg@w3.org
	> Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices
	> 
	> 
	> Daniel wrote:
	> > If you're talking about the typically large amount of mostly
	> > redundant "branding" and navigation information that
	> > typically appears at the top (and frequently left) of pages:
	> > That's not a tool issue, that's a page design issue (or
	> > possibly a page implementation issue).
	> 
	> To many organisations the branding and design of their web
information
	> is extremely important, and they spend a lot of time, money
and other
	> resource on these areas of content development.
	> 
	> Some regard the design of a site as irrelevant and sometimes
slight
	> 'design' driven sites as suffering from the flaw of valuing
'style over
	> content'
	[PW] Those who regard 'the design of a site as irrelevant' don't
know what they're talking about when it comes to creating an online
presence that will attract and encourage visitors to return. These
people need to be brought into a classroom and taught the basics of how
to build a meaningful online presence. Tim, I don't disagree with you;
these people do unfortunately exist. However, we certainly shouldn't
incorporate this thought process when creating a best practise unless we
use them as case studies for 'what not to do' or 'how not to do it'. 
	 
	Look at the Web Accessibility Initiative
<mailto:http://www.w3.org/WAI/>  - this is a perfect example of another
W3C initiative with a huge mountain to climb in terms of changing the
mindset of web designers (aka content authors) and online decision
makers. I feel a lot of the foundation work has already been done by
this group; designers are already starting to rethink and incorporate
these best practises. 
	 
	Most large corporate websites are driven by marketers/brand
owners who want a 'funky', 'state of the art', 'all singing all dancing'
website because they think it's necessary to attract visitors and stand
out from their competitors. In fact, when you ask these same marketers
what their favourite site is, their answer is usually 'Google'! Why?
Because it's clean, friendly and easy to get the information you
require.
	It has never been proven that lots of fantastic artwork has been
the deciding factor for a visitor to buy from a site. BTW, this is a
real life example of an Operator Portal in the UK. This same Operator is
completely redesigning their Portal from the ground up as they realise
the importance to make it accessible and user friendly. 
	 
	Unfortunately creative design agencies are constantly trying to
create something 'different' using technology that they don't fully
understand, and they sometimes loose sight of what the customer actually
wants.
	 
	> However, in recent years where digital media has been embraced
by the
	> artistic community, there are many examples of sites where the
	> style/design *is* the content.
	[PW] Only if visitors aren't prohibited from reaching the
content because of poor design! Don't fall into the trap of thinking you
can just resize or adapt the 'content' and all will be ok. This is not
true - Web design principles such as logically constructed information
architecture, ease of navigation, readability, consistency, load time,
and look and feel are the most important factors when building an online
presence.
	> 
	> Why shouldn't these sites be accessible on mobile devices, by
those
	> users who appreciate that particular art form.
	[PW] I'm not sure what you mean by 'particular art form'. But
let me point out again that people don't buy from websites because they
like the 'art'. The only people who enjoy browsing websites for their
ascetics are 'creative' people who are visiting those sites for that
reason alone. NB. Websites that have been created specifically for
people who appreciate 'art form' could also potentially discriminate
against people who need to use assistive technologies such as screen
readers. This is relevant as we're trying to create 'one web' (where
possible).  
	 
	> 
	> 
	> > Designers apparently think users need a link to everywhere
	> > from every single page (yes, okay, I exaggerate a bit),
	> > instead of just some "breadcrumbs" to show where you are
	> > within the site (and/or larger
	> > document) and a link or two up toward higher-level pages
that
	> > provide downward (and sideways) navigation links.
	> 
	> Maybe a solution to this is to include (semi-automatically if
using a
	> tool) metadata in the markup that denotes these parts of the
page as
	> being navigation blocks.  This could allow the browser
software to
	> choose not to display them with the meat/content.  The browser
could
	> perhaps implement some hotkey or shortcut mechanism to allow
the user to
	> quickly jump between the navigation and content elements of a
page.
	> 
	> Hopefully the site would then still be usable on a mobile
device, and
	> wouldn't require a complete redesign.
	> 
	> 
	> One of the MWI's success criteria is:
	> "User community and Industry adoption of the deliverables."
	> 
	> I believe that the content industry (mobile or otherwise) is
unlikely
	> adopt the deliverables if it feels that huge amount of
redesign effort
	> is required to comply with the Best Practices, when the end
result is
	> design and branding free sites like websites were back in 1996
	[PW] Let's not forget that we are not just creating a best
practise for current websites, we are creating a best practise for
future content authoring. We need to assume that some element of
redesign of current websites will be required; otherwise the best
practises won't encourage any form of design improvements. Most websites
are not built with the small screen in mind, so a redesign of most
websites will be required 'today'. In future, content authors will not
make assumptions about the size of the screen and hopefully make the
necessary design consideration right from the start.
	 
	Re 'design and branding free sites back 1996' - this is because
the potential of the Web wasn't realised back then. I had to self learn
how to build websites in '95 so I could teach the trainers at AOL in the
UK and there wasn't a great deal of technology that created barriers to
usability and most people were sceptical about online marketing.
	 
	It's important to note that the MWI is about encouraging a best
practise for content authoring where design is at the heart of it all.
It's not about how to best squeeze or adapt content specifically for a
mobile phone. 
	 
	Kind regards,
	Paul
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 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
	>