W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > June 2009

RE: MobileOK scheme

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:40:59 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B401EFB2CF@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Rotan Hanrahan" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
I think this is dealt with by the carve out: "when requested in the manner described in mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0" i.e. a conforming implementation is required to return mobileOK when presenting the DDC user agent and other headers, that's all.

Cheers
jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> Sent: 10 June 2009 11:35
> To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> Subject: RE: MobileOK scheme
> 
> If I understand Chaals correctly, there may be an interesting point
> here.
> 
> Consider our own situation: Someone using a MobileAware technology will
> be able to deliver a mobile experience that takes advantage of device
> capabilities because we know of all these capabilities, and making use
> of this knowledge is what our technology does. So generally, could a
> site built with our technology be thought of as mobileOK, given that in
> almost all cases we would be delivering something that goes beyond the
> minimum demanded by mobileOK?
> 
> The phrase: "[...] content providers, as well as targeting DDC level
> devices, will wish also to provide non-mobileOK experiences for more
> advanced mobile devices" could be interpreted to mean that our
> technology is not producing mobileOK content, and so a site using our
> technology could be labelled as non-mobileOK. We'd be rather sad if
> that turned out to be the case.
> 
> Of course, I think know what the group is really trying to say here. I
> think you are saying that mobileOK content is what you are required to
> offer in the absence of any reliable evidence of the requesting device,
> but in all other cases you are free to "improve" upon mobileOK without
> losing that important label of being a mobileOK site.
> 
> Perhaps what needs to be done is to provide a clear distinction between
> 1) mobileOK content and 2) a site that offers mobileOK content. A site
> only needs to offer mobileOK content in the absence of any reliable
> evidence of the device making the request. When reliable evidence is
> present, it should either offer the same mobileOK content, or do
> something better with whatever device information it has available to
> it. In the end, it's the user experience that matters.
> 
> ---Rotan.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jo Rabin
> Sent: 09 June 2009 19:55
> To: Charles McCathieNevile; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> Subject: RE: MobileOK scheme
> 
> I don't think I am clear exactly what your point is.
> 
> Are you saying that experiences that take advantage of higher device
> capabilities are not necessarily non mobileOK? Surely, if the higher
> tier experiences are mobileOK they'd also be provided to the lower-tier
> devices?
> 
> Perhaps this might be a cause of misunderstanding though, and would it
> be better if we said:
> 
> It is expected that content providers, as well as targetting DDC level
> devices, will wish also to provide experiences that are not necessarily
> mobileOK for more advanced mobile devices.
> 
> ?
> 
> Jo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
> > Sent: 09 June 2009 19:05
> > To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> > Subject: MobileOK scheme
> >
> > In the section on DDC it says
> >
> > "The DDC is thus not a target to aspire to, it merely sets a base
> line
> > below which content providers do not need to provide their content.
> It
> > is
> > expected that content providers, as well as targetting DDC level
> > devices,
> > will wish also to provide non-mobileOK experiences for more advanced
> > mobile devices."
> >
> > As I understand the Best Practices, they actually recommend providing
> > an
> > experience for non-DDC devices which takes advantage of their ability
> > to
> > do more than DDC - in other words, using the additional capabilities
> of
> > more powerful browsers while ensuring that a DDC (or unknown device)
> > gets
> > content that meets the lowest level of requirements is in line with
> > MobileOK, rather than being non-mobileOK as the draft suggests.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Chaals
> >
> > --
> > Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
> >      je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
> > http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com


Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:41:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC