W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2008

RE: Update to BP2 draft

From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:46:04 -0800
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD05D93FE9@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "BPWG-Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Sean,
Non-browser web runtimes means platforms such as Nokia's Web Run-Time
for S60, and those envisioned by W3C UWA's Widget spec. "Non-browser"
means these applications can run outside the "browser sandbox" although
they may use very similar technologies.

Re "the main focus is upon the applications themselves", I think I
borrowed this directly from BP1, but I will try to amp it.

Re " We may find that some of topics listed below don't have much of a
mobile-specific aspects": I agree, that's a likely outcome of a process
of refinement.

Re iPhone, thanks for the link. We need to consider which of these
recommendations though are *essential* and place our focus there. This
is a "what is needed" rather than "what is useful" approach.

Re "what kinds of guidance we can write": we do need to be specific, but
I don't think we need to be platform-specific. For example the
recommendation that personalized services not require me to enter my
identity every hour, and gracefully recover lost information if I reset
my device. These are focused on the mobile context since having to
repeatedly enter/re-enter my information is a service-inhibiting
requirement, especially for mobile devices.

The "ghost of the ADC" is likely to haunt the BP2, since some of the key
points of an ADC will need to be addressed, e.g. as mentioned the
ability to handle popups and iframes, which may partially/fully overlap.
We need to get specific about the user experience expectations for
those.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Owen [mailto:srowen@google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:30 AM
To: Sullivan, Bryan
Cc: BPWG-Public
Subject: Re: Update to BP2 draft

Sounds good, I imagine there is broad agreement here, just want to err
on the side of more clarity, earlier.

A couple statements pop out at me --


"apply both to browsers and non-browser web runtime environments"

Remind me what the non-browser web runtime environments are? I apologize
if I missed this by missing a call, but where is this part going?


"The recommendations necessarily reflect upon ... the nature of the
devices and user agents through which they are experienced. However the
main focus is upon the applications themselves."

I would think it is the only focus, or at least, that was the BP1
sentiment, and could be therefore stated more strongly here.


"statements that do not have a specific mobile aspect are not included"

That's great. We may find that some of topics listed below don't have
much of a mobile-specific aspects when thought of in the context of
advanced (i.e. nearly web-like) user agents. Maybe, maybe not.


Maybe another way to open this discussion is to list the sorts of
specific best practices we each have in mind? I bet we can all think of
several. Personally, I had envisioned this as very much along the lines
of Apple's iPhone guidelines:
https://developer.apple.com/iphone/devcenter/designingcontent.html

Example:
Specify a, um, "ADC"-targeted stylesheet:
<link media="only screen and (max-device-width: 480px)"
href="small-device.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" >


Of course, we're not here to rewrite these guidelines or focus on the
iPhone, though it is a reasonably clear and useful target. Android is
going to have quite the same profile and behavior too, as will several
more devices.


If we're not talking about a particular profile, and I know that was
sort of voted down with the ADC, then I wonder what kinds of guidance we
can write, that isn't hopelessly general or quite conditional? That is,
will we say "you should use media selectors to write a stylesheet that
separately targets some profile of device, which we can't talk about",
or will we say, "if you're targeting something like the iPhone, do X,
and if you are targeting something like Android, do Y, and if not,
consider Z"?

I think the DDC was the reason that BP 1.0 was concrete, coherent, and
useful. It anchored the document in reality quite well. I sense the
ghost of the ADC is still floating around here -- I already read it into
some of the text. I don't want to reopen that debate, I just note that
practice seems to argue that the issue is not over.

I am happy to be proven wrong and the fastest way would be to write up
some example draft BPs to see if we like where it's going.



On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com> wrote:
>
>  Moving this thread to the public list.
>
>  Sean,
>  Setting the scope and goals is the critical first task I agree. The  
> draft is consistent with the scope/goals of BP1 as you state them,  
> except for reliance upon a specific device context (basic, or 
> advanced)  as the frame.
>
>  Here is the scope section. It is clearly focused on the mobile device

> user experience, and specifically to how web applications (content and
>  services) are provided (thus not specifically focused on device  
> capabilities, but the implications of them on the content and services

> that are offered).
>
>  ++++
>  1.4 Scope
>  These recommendations (BP2) follow in the footsteps of the Mobile Web

> Best Practices 1.0, (BP1), for which the scope was laid out in "Scope 
> of  Mobile Web Best Practices" [Scope] . In summary, BP1 refered 
> primarily  to the extension of Web browsing onto mobile devices.
>
>  BP2 extends the focus to Web applications generally, which means an  
> application that is accessed and presented via Web technologies. Web  
> applications represent a spectrum of services and content, at the 
> simple  end of which are typical Web browsing sites, presented in 
> browsers,  which were the focus of BP1. The BP2 focus includes further

> recommendations for addressing delivery context issues and for use of

> advanced Web technologies, which apply both to browsers and 
> non-browser  web runtime environments.
>
>  The recommendations refer to applications as experienced on mobile  
> devices. The recommendations necessarily reflect upon the processes by

> which the applications are developed and delivered, and the nature of

> the devices and user agents through which they are experienced. 
> However  the main focus is upon the applications themselves, including

> content  that is delivered and presented through the applications.
>
>  As the goal of the document is to specify Best Practices for delivery

> to  mobile devices, statements that do not have a specific mobile 
> aspect are  not included. In particular, many Web Content 
> Accessibility [WCAG]  guidelines are general to all forms of Web 
> access and are not repeated  here unless they have a specific mobile 
> interpretation. Examples of  general good practice which have a 
> specific mobile interpretation  include "Error Messages" and "Color".
>  ++++
>
>  The ADC was left off the table in the Nov 07 F2F since as I think, 
> the  sense was that:
>  - it will be difficult to settle on a representative "advanced" 
> device  since so many new/advanced web technologies have been 
> developed and yet  it's still early in terms of their adoption on 
> mobile devices
>  - better cost/value will result from addressing a focused set of key

> issues (based upon BP1 and expanded for new technologies) for web  
> applications, consistent with the BP1 objectives
>  (usability/interoperability/efficiency)
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 20:47:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:51 UTC