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

a mobileOK Use Case (was Re: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zq (draft 43) - preview of PR draft)

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:18:41 +0100
Message-ID: <487233D1.7080808@icra.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: "Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group" <Heiko.Gerlach@vodafone.com>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

More or less as an aside, I have an N95 - or rather, I had one for about 
3 weeks and got used to having the jolly thing around - and then the 
screen packed up. No, I didn't drop it, no, I didn't sit on it, it just 
stopped working. So just when I get used to surfing the Web with a 
really excellent phone... I'm now using a courtesy phone which, needless 
to say, is a lot closer to the DDC! In short, even sites that work 
really well on an N95 would do well to conform to mobileOK as well.

Phil.

Jo Rabin wrote:
> 
> Comments in line:
> 
> On 07/07/2008 15:48, Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group wrote:
>> Hi Jo,
>>
>> Thanks for the update. I would like to keep the images out of that 
>> discussion. 
> Images have to be included in the discussion at some point.
> 
>> So I think we should focus on the html markup size. But we should have 
>> in mind that devices are improving steadily. I am concerned that at 
>> the end of our discussion many made for mobile sites which are delivering 
>  > good user experience may not fit with the MobileOK requirements.
> 
> That is possibly true. A site that optimizes for N95 and iPhone only 
> won't necessarily be mobileOK.
> 
>>
>> A 2nd item is the following: If we set up a dediacted mobile ok user 
>> agent string the site owners   > could return/deliver complete 
>> different content based on the user 
> agent. And than they are counted
>> as mobile OK?!
> Yes. mobileOK is assessed only against the DDC specific User Agent 
> String. It means:
> 
> "Conformance merely demonstrates that a basic experience is available, 
> interoperable with a large number of mobile devices. mobileOK Basic 
> conformance says nothing about richer, more sophisticated, experiences 
> that may be available, nor does it say anything about whether other 
> guidelines for development of Web content (such as [WCAG 1.0]) have been 
> followed."
> 
> "The Best Practices, and hence the tests, are not promoted as guidance 
> for achieving the optimal user experience. The capabilities of many 
> devices exceed those defined by the DDC. It will often be possible, and 
> generally desirable, to provide an experience designed to take advantage 
> of the extra capabilities.
> 
> Content providers should provide an experience that is mobileOK Basic 
> conformant to ensure a basic level of interoperability. Providers are 
> encouraged to provide enhanced experiences as well when these are 
> appropriate to their application and devices that are accessing them. "
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Heiko Gerlach Vendor Manager / Product Owner
>> Global Consumer Internet Services & Platforms Tel: +49 211 820 2168 
>> Fax: +49 211 820 2141 Mobile +49 172 20 40 50 7 E-Mail: 
>> heiko.gerlach@vodafone.com  
>> Vodafone Group Services GmbH
>> Mannesmannufer 2, D-40213 Düsseldorf
>> Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 53554 Geschäftsführung: Dr. Joachim 
>> Peters, Rainer Wallek
>>  
>>  
>> This message and any files or documents attached are confidential and 
>> may also be legally privileged or protected by other legal rules. It 
>> is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not 
>> the named addressee or you have received this email in error, please 
>> inform the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not 
>> copy or disclose it or its contents or use it for any purpose. Thank 
>> you.  Please also note that transmission cannot be guaranteed to be 
>> secure or error- -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi] Sent: 07 July 2008 15:44
>> To: Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group
>> Cc: MWI BPWG Public
>> Subject: Re: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zq (draft 43) - preview of 
>> PR draft
>>
>> It comes from long deliberation over several years. The figure refers 
>> to the markup alone, when taking images and css into account you get 20k.
>>
>> The figure is supposed to refer to devices that are minimally capable 
>> of accessing the Web as modelled by the DDC. If you are serving to 
>> more capable devices you are expected to exploit their capabilities 
>> and will no doubt send larger and richer pages. If you want to be 
>> mobileOK, though, you must be prepared to deal with minimal devices of 
>> this kind.
>>
>> Jo
>>
>> On 07/07/2008 14:31, Gerlach, Heiko, VF-Group wrote:
>>> Hi Jo,
>>>
>>> Just a quick question: 3.16: Note: Who defined the 10Kilo bytes size? 
>>> I am not sure whether this is realistic. Does it contain / count 
>>> images and other page elements as well? Or is it just the HTML code 
>>> size? 
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> Heiko Gerlach
>>> Vendor Manager / Product Owner
>>> Global Consumer Internet Services & Platforms
>>> Tel: +49 211 820 2168
>>> Fax: +49 211 820 2141
>>> Mobile +49 172 20 40 50 7
>>> E-Mail: heiko.gerlach@vodafone.com
>>>  
>>> Vodafone Group Services GmbH
>>> Mannesmannufer 2, D-40213 Düsseldorf
>>> Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 53554
>>> Geschäftsführung: Dr. Joachim Peters, Rainer Wallek
>>>  
>>>  
>>> This message and any files or documents attached are confidential and 
>>> may also be legally privileged or protected by other legal rules. It 
>>> is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not 
>>> the named addressee or you have received this email in error, please 
>>> inform the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not 
>>> copy or disclose it or its contents or use it for any purpose. Thank 
>>> you.  Please also note that transmission cannot be guaranteed to be 
>>> secure or error- -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] 
>>> On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
>>> Sent: 07 July 2008 11:41
>>> To: MWI BPWG Public
>>> Subject: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zq (draft 43) - preview of PR 
>>> draft
>>>
>>>
>>> Further to the exchange on STYLE_SHEETS_USE on the Comments and 
>>> Checker lists please find another draft at:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests/
>>> 080707
>>>
>>> and a diff to the LC-4 Editor's draft at (sorry, TinyURL not working 
>>> today)
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005
>>> %2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080606&doc
>>> 2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2Fmobil
>>> eOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080707
>>>
>>> and a diff to draft 1zp at
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005
>>> %2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FmobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080704&doc
>>> 2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2Fmobil
>>> eOK-Basic-1.0-Tests%2F080707
>>>
>>> I very much hope that this is the last draft so we can agree to 
>>> proceed on Thursday's call.
>>>
>>> Jo
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2008 14:06, Jo Rabin wrote:
>>>> Thanks again to Rotan for picking up my mistake on the formatting of 
>>>> the  Object Element Processing Rule, annoying, especially since I 
>>>> had asked you all to look at it very carefully. Sigh. Festina Lente.
>>>>
>>>> So I have spent this morning chastising myself, and (perhaps more
>>>> usefully) tightening up on the notion of Included Resources and 
>>>> which tests apply to them. This has meant some reasonably 
>>>> substantial (but not
>>>> substantive) changes. I've also changed the wording of the Object 
>>>> Processing Rule once again to try to clarify it. In addition there 
>>>> is some tidying up of grammatical agreement, capitalization and so on.
>>>>
>>>> I hesitate to say this, in view of yesterday's debacle, but please 
>>>> check this all out carefully. It is very difficult to review one's 
>>>> own text and not read into it what one meant to say, irrespective of 
>>>> what it actually says.
>>>>
>>>> You will find the latest offering at
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tests
>>>> /
>>>> 080704
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the diff to the LC-4 Editors draft at
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5jgu2q
>>>>
>>>> and the diff to yesterday's offering at
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5q5lpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2008 00:54, Jo Rabin wrote:
>>>>> Oh dear. Thanks Rotan, and I have spotted some other bugs. The 
>>>>> fateful draft 42 to come tomorrow ... when I have thought about it 
>>>>> a bit more.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/07/2008 19:04, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
>>>>>> I have looked at the object element processing rule at [1] and I 
>>>>>> believe I can follow what is intended, but unfortunately the 
>>>>>> indenting (which represents the scope of operations in some cases) 
>>>>>> seems a little broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---Rotan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tes
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> s/08
>>>>>> 0703#ObjectElementProcessingRule
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
>>>>>> Sent: 03 July 2008 17:44
>>>>>> To: MWI BPWG Public
>>>>>> Subject: New draft of mobileOK Basic 1zo (draft 41) - preview of 
>>>>>> PR draft
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've posted a new version of mobileOK Basic Tests at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Basic-1.0-Tes
>>>>>> t
>>>>>> s/08
>>>>>> 0703
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Differences from LC-4 Editors Draft: http://tinyurl.com/5bly2q
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I intend to make some further minor tweaks to correct punctuation 
>>>>>> and some wording but they can wait. Please review this draft and 
>>>>>> in particular give your consideration to the Object Processing 
>>>>>> Rule which has been such a headache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I think
>>>>>> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove Appendix C as it is now superfluous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> Jo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [principal changes]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corrections as noted by Francois when posting previous draft into 
>>>>>> TR space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Removal of reference to mobileOK Pro in Appendix C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Removal of reference to mobileOK Pro in section 1 and renaming of 
>>>>>> section 1.1 and 1.1.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corrections to Object Processing and HTTP Response as noted by Dom 
>>>>>> and Francois and as noted by me on the public-bpwg-comment list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes to clarify the difference between type attribute, Internet 
>>>>>> Media
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Type and Presentation Media Type.
>>>>>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Phil Archer
Chief Technical Officer,
Family Online Safety Institute
w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 15:19:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC