W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > July 2005

RE: Best Practices document - not best practices

From: Holley Kevin \(Centre\) <Kevin.Holley@O2.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:40:19 +0100
Message-ID: <729015D2FB03A041A00327DCD08369838909EA@Uksthmsx014>
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>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:49 UTC