RE: URLs and access issues

Just to give you an idea of how this problem is currently solved in Japan. 
 
It is quite normal to see posters on the trains and metro system here in Tokyo which display two URLS: one for the 'normal' website' and one, usually with a small mobile phone logo next to it showing the URL for the mobile site.  The most common form of mobile URL is to use a 'mobile' sub-directory for example: http://something.jp/m/ , sub-domains, eg: http://m.something.jp/ are less common.
 
There is already the definite distinction in Japan between 'website' and 'mobile phone site' and the public know what to expect from each type of URL advertised.  This is purely due to the fact that the Japanese public have had longer exposure to mobile content than us in the west.

I guess this also works here because the mobile sites are quite standard: they have small images, lots of colourful 'emoticons' and short lines of text; and the public know what to expect from that kind of link.
 
I know that there is a common goal for the people on this mailing list to make a new standard in which you can define one site which will work equally well in a full browser or in a cut down mobile browser ( phone or PDA ) but I am still not convinced there is a need.  My main argument for that focuses on the type of content that is required in each case rather than the technology restrictions - in four years time I am sure you will be able to download pages full of massive images onto your handset, we will have the bandwidth available to do this, but would people really want to view that on a tiny screen ?
 
Maybe I am just playing 'devils advocate' as I do in fact think that the mobile content will evolve beyond the simple, cut-down stuff we get in Japan at the moment.  My long term feelings are that a new kind of rich content will evolve that can be accessed anywhere at any time from any device.  
 
Actually that sounds a lot like the perfect world goal that many of us on this mailing list are working towards.
 
Marcus.
http://cellsuite.blogspot.com
 
 
 

 
Nicolas Combelles <nicolas.combelles@apocope.com> wrote:
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, 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  (M)   or   go to 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.... 



 [...]  

		
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.