RE: URLs and access issues

This didn't make it to the list


________________________________

	From: Ray Anderson [mailto:ray@bango.net] 
	Sent: 09 August 2005 14:50
	To: Tim Moss; Ray Anderson; Rotan Hanrahan; public-bpwg@w3.org
	Subject: RE: URLs and access issues
	
	
	I'd also like to add another suggestion at this point.
	
	The idea of having different URL's for different devices is no
use, and thats why .MOBI and wap.site.com etc. are 
	never going to reach the mainstream.  What is needed however
(which in someways underlies the .mobi idea)
	is an indicator to users that a URL will probably work if they
enter it on their phone.
	
	Its the same idea that is used on phone numbers.  Some people
say FAX 01223 472778 or GSM 07768 123456
	to give a clue (Fax or smsable) about phone numbers.
	
	I believe the time is right to encourage the use of a symbolic
way of saying "try it on your mobile", or "works on WAP" 
	My suggestion is that web addresses followed by (M) are
accessible while mobile.  So, an ad might say, visit
	bango at www.bango.net <http://www.bango.net/>   (M)   or   go
to www.vodafone.com <http://www.vodafone.com/>  (M)  
	The good news is that the (M) is not a trademark and easy to use
wherever a user could show a URL (like in the text above)
	Its also clearly not part of the URL.  Web sites that falseley
state (M) will earn disrespect.  Site owners will be encouraged to use
(M) to drive more usage.   It does not cost any extra or imply too much,
other than making people follow the Mobile Web initiative.
	
	I suggest we lobby .MOBI to support (M) as an alternative to
buying a new domain name.... 
	
	
	
	
	
	At 14:24 09/08/2005, Tim Moss wrote:
	
	

		Using a 'modified' URL isn't any good in print media, or
other forms of
		advertising/distributing a URL.
		
		Imagine a link sent to both your PC and your mobile
device in an email.
		The URL should ideally work on both devices.
		
		If the URL is printed on a billboard for example, who
knows what devices
		will be used to access it, but you wouldn't want to use
up space and
		confuse things by listing more than one URL.
		
		I think the determination of the browser context should
be as dynamic as
		possible, but it would be good if the user can override
any choices made
		automatically for them.
		
		Future browsers may have a way of expressing and storing
user
		preferences.  
		In the meantime however, these preferences could be
expressed by the
		user interacting with the site e.g. clicking on a 'text
only'
		button/link if that is what the user wants, and having
the server resend
		content taking the user's preference into account.
These user
		preferences could be 'remembered' in a session or in
cookies if that was
		appropriate.
		
		
		
		
		In an ideal world the site can then be advertised on one
URL
		http://www.somesite.com <http://www.somesite.com/>  
		
		The site server can use device description information
to determine to
		the best of its abilities how to adapt the content for
that browser.
		Similarly the site server may be able to use information
sent through by
		future browsers to determine any overriding preferences
the user has
		expressed.  Those browsers may be able to carry out some
adaptation
		themselves (e.g. not displaying/downloading images)
based on user
		preferences.
		
		As a fallback, if the user's browser doesn't allow them
to express
		preferences then the site could be authored to give the
user some way of
		expressing their preference once they can see the site
(albeit not in
		their ideal representation 1st time round).
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		 
		 
		Tim Moss
		CTO
		Bango
		 
		e: tim@bango.com
		m: +44 78 8779 4032
		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/>  
		 
		
		> -----Original Message-----
		> From: Ray Anderson [mailto:ray@bango.net] 
		> Sent: 08 August 2005 22:47
		> To: Rotan Hanrahan; public-bpwg@w3.org
		> Cc: Tim Moss
		> Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best
practices
		> 
		> URL is also hopeless if you are "passing" sites to
friends.
		> How do you know what device they will be using for
access?
		> 
		> I think better to have preference information
associated with 
		> the terminal/client and have theserver able to
discover it to 
		> provide best experience.  Do we all agree with that as
a way 
		> forward / philosophy?
		> 
		> 
		> At 15:05 08/08/2005, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
		> 
		> >Finding a standard naming scheme might be a problem.
Not everyone 
		> >speaks english :)
		> >
		> >Yet it is technically possible to do so, and maybe we
could even 
		> >convince webmasters to follow.
		> >
		> >However, would it not be better if you could
communicate your 
		> >preference for "detailed", "summary", etc. using a
different 
		> mechanism? 
		> >User preferences are supposed to be one of the things
that CC/PP 
		> >vocabularies could capture. I could then just use the

		> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/ URL without any path, and my
preference 
		> >information would immediately tell the site how I
would like 
		> the home 
		> >page to be represented. The CC/PP information would
also 
		> indicate the 
		> >properties of my device, so the site could now offer
me a 
		> >representation of the page that fits both my specific

		> requirements and the consgtraints imposed by the
device I am using.
		> >
		> >Of course, in practice, things like CC/PP are not
sufficiently well 
		> >supported to enable this to work (yet) so we could
look for 
		> an interim 
		> >solution based on URL paths. Unlike paths, the
benefit of using a 
		> >method like CC/PP is that you don't have to choose
arbitrary names.
		> >
		> >What if we decided the words in the path would be in
Gaelic? 
		> I'd have 
		> >no problem understanding what 
		> http://news.bbc.co.uk/ceannlinte/ meant, 
		> >but would you?
		> >
		> >OK, perhaps we go international and use Esperanto.
Would 
		> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/resumo/ make sense?
		> >
		> >Putting things into the URL doesn't always help, even
if it 
		> seems like 
		> >a good idea at the start.
		> >
		> >---Rotan.
		> >
		> >-----Original Message-----
		> >From: Andrea Crevola
[mailto:andrea.crevola@3juice.com]
		> >Sent: 08 August 2005 14:18
		> >To: public-bpwg@w3.org
		> >Subject: Re: Best Practices document - not best
practices
		> >
		> >
		> >
		> >
		> >
		> >Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
		> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/detailed/
		> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/summary/
		> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/bite-sized/
		> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/headlines/
		> > >
		> >
		> >I think that you are right: only two thoughts:
		> >
		> >1) following this idea, we need - I suppose - is a
sort of 
		> standard for 
		> >naming sub-folders (or sub-domains). One reason for
that is avoiding 
		> >that every webmaster defines his set of *versions*...
so our 
		> user may 
		> >find more quickly the version tailored for him.
		> >
		> >2) we need a mechanism (technical or logical) that
could let 
		> the user 
		> >be aware of the quantity and the quality of
information that 
		> is behind 
		> >these urls. At the moment - I think, but that's my
opinion - 
		> the word 
		> >"mobile" gives a - rude - idea of the amount of text,
images 
		> ecc. So, 
		> >how we can mantain this suggestion using other words?
		> >
		> >Are these arguments have something to do with best
practices 
		> in mobile 
		> >websites?
		> >
		> >Andrea
		> 
		> 
		> Ray Anderson   T:+44 7768 454545    F:+44 20 7692 5558
		> ray@bango.com
		> 
		> 
		> 
		> 
		> 

	
	Ray Anderson   T:+44 7768 454545    F:+44 20 7692 5558  
	ray@bango.com

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 14:50:20 UTC