RE: Best Practices document - not best practices

I think we all agree on most of what is being discussed with some minor
variations of how the 'one web' concept is interpreted. These
variations, however small, are fundamentally important to how successful
the MWI is interpreted by everyone and hence accepted as a best practise
- so I welcome further discussion from those who are still unclear about
the purpose of the 'best practise' initiative.
 
The ultimate goal is quiet simple and I think Kevin made a very good
point (as you do too Tim!) that I'd like to expand further. A content
author should no longer continue to assume they understand the access
point used by visitors. I accept that most visitors will continue to use
a desktop PC to access the web with few using PDAs and even fewer using
smaller screens such as mobile phones - and this won't change for quiet
some time to come (I specifically use the term phone because 'device'
covers PDAs). However this will change over time with more people
accessing the web using smaller screens like mobile phones, and the MWI
BP is looking to provide guidance on how to reach the full potential of
the Web by demonstrating how to author Web content in the best possible
way for optimum performance on small screens - not just for mobile
phones, although this is the primary focus. There are some limitations
and these are covered below.
 
In order for a content author to make no assumptions about the access
point, they almost have to assume visitors could use any access point.
Therefore web pages should be authored in a way that makes it possible
to establish the access point and then render the content accordingly,
as best it can given the 'current' limitations of browsers, devices,
content authoring tools and markup languages. Where there are technical
limitations to creating 'one website' or where a specific 'small screen'
user experience is absolutely necessary, content adaptation of some kind
will be expected, permissible and encouraged. Content adaptation will be
required for some time to come, there's no escaping that fact, but this
it is the last resort and will only be permissible when looking to
receive a trustmark for the reasons outlined above.
 
In a perfect (one Web) world, content adaptation service providers would
not be needed and would therefore not exist, but they are needed, they
do exist and they add fantastic value :)
 
To put it another way; until vendors produce more user friendly mobile
devices, until browsers on mobile devices mature like they have for
better accessibility via a PC and until Operators agree to permit
Vendors to include hotkeys and shortcuts etc. for a better user
experience, the MWI will provide flexibility so that adaptation is
accepted where necessary but not encouraged.
 
Too many people are looking at the MWI from the wrong angle. This is a
Web driven initiative embracing the expertise of the Mobile industry
with a mission of increasing access to the Web via as many access points
as possible. This is not a Mobile industry initiative in the hope of
providing a specific mobile user experience. NB. Even if providing a new
specific mobile experience is better than what you get today, this will
not be permissible where it's possible to author one solution to fit
all, if seeking the MWI trustmark.
 
Ideally, (and this is not in contrast to your comment Tim but my
interpretation of the word) content should not require optimisation in
order to render properly on each access point. Web content should be
optimally authored so it does this job properly with some optimisation
via content adaptation where absolutely necessary as explained above.
 
Kind regards,
Paul
 

Principal Director 
19 The Mall / Beacon Court 
Sandyford / Dublin 18 / Ireland 
 t:    +353 (0)1 2931 966
 m:   +44 (0)7734 606 453 
 w:   www.segalamtest.com  <http://www.segalamtest.com/> 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Tim Moss
Sent: 22 July 2005 12:25
To: Holley Kevin (Centre); Ray Anderson; Daniel Barclay; Barbara Ballard
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices
 
I agree that guidelines or best practices applied when designing a page
'intended' for PC web browsers, that give a reasonable experience when
that page is viewed on a mobile device will be very useful.
 
Surely this isn't the ultimate goal though.  
 
The ideal is that the information available is output in a way that is
*optimised* as much as possible for the device it is being displayed on.
On a mid format device e.g. a PDA then potentially little change is
required, but on a low end phone, then the navigation through the
information will need to completely change to provide the best
experience on that device.
 
However, until they get enough mobile users, I suspect that sites will
not be given the capability to dynamically adapt the content based on
the viewing device, so good practices for building static HTML pages in
a way that means that they at least can be viewed on a mobile device is
a useful step forward, but in my view only a fairly small step.
 
 
Bango give content providers an easy mechanism for publishing a single
URL in print etc. and taking the user to content suitable for their
device.
 
 
Tim
 
 
Tim Moss
CTO
Bango
 
e: tim@bango.com
m: +44 78 8779 4032
t: +44 12 2347 2823
w: http://www.bango.com <http://www.bango.com/> 
 
  
  
Mobile Entertainment Summit 2005
******************************************************************
"Come and see us at MES 2005
Hilton Universal City, Los Angeles, USA
27-28 July 2005"
www.ihollywoodforum.com <http://www.ihollywoodforum.com/>  
 

  _____  

From: Holley Kevin (Centre) [mailto:Kevin.Holley@O2.com] 
Sent: 22 July 2005 09:03
To: Ray Anderson; Daniel Barclay; Barbara Ballard
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org; Tim Moss
Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices
Dear Ray and all,
 
I think that this goes to show that we need a change of culture such
that web designers take the mobile users into consideration when
designing a website.  We should not create a second class overlay web
which has a few "mobile web" pages but should try to encourage the
design-in of mobile friendliness at the start.
 
I think in particular it would be useful if web design tools show how
the pages look when viewed with a mobile device.
 
At the end of the day the most open system is one where the end user
decides whether to use the mobile device for viewing a particular site,
and not the original designer, who is unlikely to understand all
possible use cases.
 
Regards,
 
Kevin
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Anderson [mailto:ray@bango.com] 
Sent: 22 July 2005 06:45
To: Holley Kevin (Centre); Daniel Barclay; Barbara Ballard
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org; tim@bango.com
Subject: RE: Best Practices document - not best practices
Try viewing www.nokia.com <http://www.nokia.com/> 

Thats certainly not viewable from most small devices, because it has
huge images, flash animation etc.

Contrast with vodafone.com which provides a smaller site optimized for
mobile when viewed from i-mode or WAP devices

Ray
At 21:24 20/07/2005, Holley Kevin \(Centre\) wrote:



Could I ask how we tell the difference between "mobile web" and "regular
web" ?

Personally I use a mobile device to view "web" pages.  In many cases I
can read what is there irrespective of whether the target is "mainstream
web" or "mobile web".  

Witness http://www.google.com/ 

This website displays very well on mobile devices and desktop-based
browsers.

Regards,

Kevin 

-----Original Message-----

=====================================================
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.
=====================================================

From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Daniel Barclay
Sent: 20 July 2005 17:26
To: Barbara Ballard
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices document - not best practices



Barbara Ballard wrote:
>> I think you missed my point:  It's a bit contradictory 
>> (hypocritical?) for a page about best practices for the mobile web to

>> not follow best practices for the regular web.
> 
> 
> If the document is written for mobile web, then best practices for  
> the
> regular web are irrelevant.  

The document _about_ the mobile web is _presented_ on the regular web.

Although good practices for the regular web may be irrelevent to the
_content_ of the document, they are certainly relevant to the
_presentation_ of the document.

Not bothering to understand and follow good practices for the regular
web in the presentation of that document certainly does not instill
confidence in the content.


 > In fact, best practices for the  regular
> web can greatly interfere with the experience on the mobile web.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you're referring to common
practices that I'd argue aren't good practices (e.g., pages or text
documents that have widths tied to fixed-width elements).


Daniel

Ray Anderson   CEO Bango   ray@bango.com    www.bango.com
<http://www.bango.com/>  Mobile: +44 7768 454545  Fax: +44 20 7692 5558


Come and see Bango at Mobile Entertainment Summit 2005,  Hilton
Universal City, Los Angeles, USA   27-28 July www.ihollywoodforum.com