RE: URLs and access issues

I'm happy to create a central document and conduct some preliminary research
online.  If you are based abroad or are aware of any standards overseas can
you drop me an email outlining the following?

* Country 
* Approach to URLs illustrated with an example
* Any other information you feel is relevant which would be useful to
collect? 

Please provide brief information e.g.:

* Japan
* The most common form of mobile URL is to use a 'mobile'sub-directory
http://something.jp/m/ or http://m.something.jp/ (less common)
* Posters on the trains and Tokyo metro system display two URLS: 
  - one for the 'normal' website
  - one for the 'mobile' website with a small mobile phone logo next to it.


Thanks

..............................................................................
 
Dominique Lee 
Senior Producer

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Anderson [mailto:ray@bango.net] 
Sent: 10 August 2005 21:54
To: Dominique Lee; 'marcus saw'; 'Nicolas Combelles'; public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: URLs and access issues

An excellent idea.   Perhaps somebody could voulenteer to collect such a 
pile of info...
Ray
At 11:37 10/08/2005, Dominique Lee wrote:

>I have recently signed up to the W3C MWI and have a strong interest in the
>development of standards to assist the growth of the industry. I found
>Marcus’ insight into the current approach in Japan very interesting. Would
>it be worthwhile identifying how a range of countries are approaching
mobile
>URLS and access issues in order to identify good practice to create a
global
>standard?
>
>............................................................................
....
>
>Dominique Lee
>Senior Producer
>Worth Media
>________________________________________
>From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
>Behalf Of marcus saw
>Sent: 10 August 2005 03:05
>To: Nicolas Combelles; public-bpwg@w3.org
>Subject: 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.


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

Received on Thursday, 11 August 2005 09:00:58 UTC