RE: Best Practices document - not best practices

My apologies.
 
M.

Paul Walsh <paulwalsh@segalamtest.com> wrote:


v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Guys,

 

Can we please refrain from using this list to promote our services as I receive enough email already.

 

Thanks

Paul

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of marcus saw
Sent: 07 August 2005 09:40
To: Nicolas Combelles; 'Tammy'; 'Tim Moss'
Cc: 'Paul Walsh'; public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices document - not best practices

 

Reading these posts and more I have come to my own conclusions and have put up a service I think you might find interesting.  It is a simple idea and uses the current direction of standard 'web' technologies to overcome the common hurdle of mobile presentation. 


 


What technology am I talking about ? Well I am talking about RSS, which in my mind is the perfect solution for quickly providing a mobile version of existing content.  


 


RSS is taking off as a popular medium and is being hailed as the 'mailing list killer' on some news articles [1] [2] . Whilst I don't believe the hype that RSS will ever replace content driven web sites, I do believe that it will be widely adopted by the Internet community and will be a great 'middle layer' for providing mobile content. 


 


The site I created is a beta to test out this theory.  It is free of course, will remain free and does not require registration prior to use.  All it does is re-format RSS feeds into pages that can be read by mobile phones.  It currently supports XHTML, JHTML and CHTML and I will work to create the correct rendering for any other standard I come across.


 


I have been using the site to get content on my mobile phone whilst I am in Japan, there are plenty of mobile sites here of course but not that many that cater for the English language user and that's the main reason I built this service.


 


I would be interested in any feedback you may have and whether you to can see the benefits of using RSS as a middle layer for multi-channel presentation.


1. http://www.feedforall.com/future-rss-not-blogs.htm


2. http://www.llrx.com/features/rss.htm


 


OK I hope that I have not offended anyone by using this as an opportunity to promote my service but it is meant to be an on-topic, relevant demonstration of the use of RSS.


 


So go to http://www.pixs.jp on your mobile phone and let me know what you think.


 


Rgds,


 


Marcus.


http://cellsuite.blogspot.com


 


 



Nicolas Combelles <nicolas.combelles@apocope.com> wrote:



> I think mobile users are different to Web users as print reading was
different to Web surfing.

Exactly, mobile IS a new media, but a media using "same" IT technologies
that PC. 

Even print can benefit from web technologies :
You can have specific CSS for print, but this is for "smart rendering of a
printed WEB page", not to create a magazine ad page.

So specific "handeld" CSS may be considered to be for "smart rendering of a
mobile-displayed WEB page". But creating a real mobile-user-centric
application such as weather news or maps, requires more specific design and
programming, even if it is still using web technologies.

Understanding these two (with a very blurred fronteer) levels (acceptable
rendering, and real mobile user experience) is the key.

Regards,
Nicolas Combelles
Apocope

-----Message d'origine-----
De : public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] De la
part de Tammy
Envoyé : jeudi 4 août 2005 05:33
À : Tim Moss
Cc : Paul Walsh; public-bpwg@w3.org
Objet : Re: Best Practices document - not best practices


Not using redundant information on a page doesn't mean it must deleted or
not used on a mobile Web site, but it is only displayed in it's rightful
place where it is the main content. I think mobile users are different to
Web users as print reading was different to Web surfing.

I'd like to read the working drafts posted below so I can add or comment but
I don't have access, I was curious if they have already determined a
recommendation for page sizes/graphic sizes for an 'optimal' page download
wait time.

I had an optimal user experience: Using my cell phone with zip entry and a
few clicks I was able to get to a weather satellite picture of our county
while I was stuck in a building with no power. Most weather sites would have
taken time/power download all the unused data as well as be difficult to
wade through all the information.

Tamara Taylor

Tim Moss wrote:

> 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 bac k 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 < BR>> 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
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/01/DDWGCharter/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/MOK/050727
> 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 
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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
> – 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 f rom 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 cre ating 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 th at 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 Se ptember 2005"
>
>> www.mobilecontentworld.biz
>
>>
>









---------------------------------


How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos



		
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos