RE: URLs and access issues

Exactly !!!
 
Don't know why, but I didn't receive Ray's mail. 
 
I was going to agree to Tim's comment about the advertising issue :
 
I agree that communicating on two URL add much more complexity and cost and
is harder to understand/memorize for user, which is one other main problem
of choosing a two URL strategy.
 
Our client for example, mentionned they already had to pressure the comm.
department for a long time to get the website URL displayed on any ads. They
cannot imagine to be able to add another URL.
 
 
But then I wanted to raise (again ?) the problem that Ray has just
mentionned :
 
When you've invested in a specific website version designed to suite to
mobile usage, you want to your customer know about it. 
And to everyone,  <http://www.company> www.company  means "desktop website".
And this may remains until more than 50% of website are "mobileOK".
 
So Ray's idea to a visual logo and/or symbol is really important.
And reading Rotan's comment I think this was already in the intial goal of
the "mobileOK" label (I only thought it was meant for developpers and
useragents, not for users).
 
But such logo/symbol has to be though in a marketing way to be adopted on
any media.
 
 
To mention again our french specific mobile kiosk* (that is really something
other telcos should really look at) :
As said before, each site registered on this kiosk gets an ID (usually the
company or service brand).
There is also a communication charter with a logo (flashy green and pink) to
respect (not to mention the ergonomic guidelines).
 
For example Amazon France would communicate with such logo or typo :
( GALLERY >> AMAZON )
 
The code "AMAZON" can then be typed either in the Gallery search form
present on any telco portal, or sent by SMS to the 30130 to receive the site
URL.
 
Our three telcos are currently making much advertisment on Gallery (to
create brand awarness). Then, with all the editors communicating using this
charter, Gallery will soon become synonym of mobile Internet in France. 
 
In this sense, the mobile is really considered as a new media.
 
 
* Gallery presentation (public flash site in french) : www.gallerymobile.fr
 
 
Cheers,
 

Nicolas Combelles
R&D & Mobile marketing projects Manager
________________________________
apocope ~ web & wireless business

 

  _____  

De : public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] De la
part de Rotan Hanrahan
Envoyé : mardi 9 août 2005 15:57
À : public-bpwg@w3.org
Objet : RE: URLs and access issues


> I suggest we lobby .MOBI to support (M) as an alternative to buying a new
domain name.... 

The .mobi top level domain is already a reality.
 
A MobileOK trustmark with appropriate logo, phrase or tag-line to be used in
conjunction with advertised URLs is a good idea. It could be applied to any
URL, including the inevitable .mobi domains.
 
The problem with "FAX" is that it gives the impression that the number is
unsuitable for voice. We don't want a situation when a MobileOK logo/phrase
is mis-interpreted as meaning that access from (traditional?) fixed browsers
would not work. Instead we want something like "suitable for vegetarians",
which obviously doesn't prevent the meat-lovers from getting a feed.
 
---Rotan
 
-----Original Message-----
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.... 



 [...]