- From: Holley Kevin \(Centre\) <Kevin.Holley@O2.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:40:19 +0100
- To: "Tammy" <taylortk@verizon.net>, "Paul Walsh" <paulwalsh@segalamtest.com>
- Cc: "Barbara Ballard" <barbara@littlespringsdesign.com>, "Daniel Barclay" <daniel@fgm.com>, <public-bpwg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <729015D2FB03A041A00327DCD08369838909EA@Uksthmsx014>
Dear All, I have another comment to this thread. I am not sure it is so clear that "web browsing" is always about "browsing". Sometimes you want to read all the information and not skip about. I have seen a few "brochure" sites where navigation is very complex and to read all the articles you have to skip back and forth between index-of-index pages and the real content. Sometimes you read a brochure cover to cover and this method also needs to be considered. What I am saying is that /sometimes/ having a very long page which you scroll through is not necessarily a poor experience. Regards, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tammy Sent: 20 July 2005 02:43 To: Paul Walsh Cc: 'Barbara Ballard'; 'Daniel Barclay'; public-bpwg@w3.org Subject: Re: Best Practices document - not best practices Hi Paul/Barbara, This is my first post so please let me know if there is a particular etiquette I should follow. I'm only knowledgable about Web site development and I know that working groups often address both the needs of Web site development and device/software development. But I thought I would share my point of view if it helps. I like Paul's statement regarding 'one web', I'm attempting to redevelop my personal Web site to meet all platforms all devices. The basic design is proving to take a lot of time but I'm attempting to use W3C CSS 2.0 for all the design and layout W3C XHTML 1.0 strict (I may have to reduce this) and W3C WAIG 1.0. I would ultimately like one source code to fit all devices desktops/PDA/cell phone/other screen-readers. So far I have found that mastering CSS 2.0 for design/layout is going to be very important to the 'one web' design. Years ago I read the book "Interface Culture; How New Technology Transforms The Way We Create And Communicate" by Steven Johnson. c1997. It was difficult reading but one of the concepts I got from the book was the idea of how Web sites should take advantage of hyperlinks in such a way that the initial read of a page would be brief but additional levels or tracks of detail/interest is reached through hyperlinks (e.g. layers of content). I think this concept is key in developing content for a variety of displays - especially cell phones. Barbara's comments hit a little closer to the realities in commercial development. At work I have developed for PC/PDA combinations that really looked better on the PDA and PDA/Cell phone combination that doesn't look good anywhere and contains a very simple inteface. But these are interactive applications developed under time constraints - and in the current professional environment creating a 'one web' may be more time consuming than developing alternate shells for content. I'm sure that this has already been mentioned before, I'm sure I read it on a W3C Web page, but I think promoting the separation of content from display is important. First content has to be developed to take the best advantages that XHTML has to offer giving the user the option of determining the depth of their access to content and then design/layout developed for 'one web' display. Highly structured content will also be important in organizing the content in a logical/consistent order so users become familair with content navigation (assuming content is layered) as people learned Web site navigation needed to be consistent on all pages. Tamara Taylor Paul Walsh wrote: Hi Barbara, I can see where you are coming from and I agree that it would be foolish to think that every website could be built to 'fit all' screen sizes. Some websites (complex and/or copy heavy) will always require a specific 'small screen' experience. Otherwise users could end up scrolling down a page forever (this is just one example). However, and it is a very big however, the essence of the Mobile Web Initiative (MWI) is to encourage as best we can, the concept of 'one web' via the MWBPG - this can come with the caveat; 'wherever technically possible' if it makes people feel more comfortable. In other words, we would like to encourage web authors to assume that when building a website, visitors may use a PC, PDA, Mobile 'Phone' or any other screen size or device type that may come to market in the future, rather than making assumptions which will soon be out of date and not reflective of technology and how people want to access the Web. When a website establishes the entry point, content should render according to the device used, as this will ensure visitors receive the best user experience. By not discouraging web authors to build a separate mobile experience without establishing if it's technically possible to build 'one web', we will not achieve our goal as most will take the easy option of building multiple websites that could easily become out of sync when one device type is deemed more important than another. The optimisation of sites using a content adaptation solution provided by companies such as MobileAware, Volantis and Drutt is the most appropriate route to take when the 'one web' just isn't technically possible. Creating a specific site for a small screen just because you (figuratively speaking) think it's the right thing to do is not the way forward to help encourage the 'one web' concept, thereby removing more barriers. I believe the w3c is the most appropriate arena to encourage this best practise as its primary goal is to ensure that access to the Web is device independent whereas the Mobile industry will only care about access via a mobile device. A mobile device is just another screen that people can use to access the Web and these will be soon modified/improved for a better user experience. Therefore we should be encouraging a best practise based on what we'd like to achieve in the future whilst considering the current technology and its limitations today, rather than limiting the best practise to what's only possible today. Kind regards, Paul ===================================================== This electronic message contains information from O2 which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately. =====================================================
Received on Friday, 22 July 2005 08:40:24 UTC