RE: MobileOK scheme

Aha, the ace wordsmith strikes again. You've dealt with the problematic "non-mobileOK" expression by confining it to non-existence. Nice one. Sure, the alternative sentence does convey a better sense of what is expected, and no longer contains the negative "non-mobileOK" phrase. I'd guess that should also address the point as initially raised by Chaals (though I won't presume to speak on his behalf).

Maybe I'll toss the "beyond-mobileOK" phrase over the fence to the marketing wolves...

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
Sent: 10 June 2009 12:44
To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
Subject: RE: MobileOK scheme

> all other recognised devices. By saying "beyond-mobileOK" you could

One step beyond - there lies Madness ...

... how about "... will wish also to provide experiences for more advanced mobile devices that have capabilities not supported by the DDR."

Is that satisfactory, Rotan? Does this settle your point, Chaals?

Jo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> Sent: 10 June 2009 12:36
> To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> Subject: RE: MobileOK scheme
> 
> That's fine, Jo, but it doesn't alter the perception of the sentence
> when viewed in isolation (and it *will* be viewed in isolation, thanks
> to our unfortunate global trend towards sound-bites). Perhaps if we
> coined a new phrase, like "beyond-mobileOK content" instead of the
> current "non-mobileOK"? Theoretically with the current phrase and the
> "carve out" you could have a site that only produces mobileOK content
> for the DDC pseudo-device, while producing complete rubbish/trash for
> all other recognised devices. By saying "beyond-mobileOK" you could
> remind people of the expectation inherent in the Best Practices, that
> you will make use of known device capabilities to enhance the end-user
> experience.
> 
> Of course, one might counter-argue that to say "beyond-mobileOK"
> introduces the notion of inferiority for mobileOK content, and possibly
> for mobile content per se. The implication is that mobile content is
> poor. Our technology can, for example, deliver desktop experiences if
> you wish, but this is not to say that the desktop experience is somehow
> superior to the mobile experience.
> 
> So maybe "adapted-mobileOK"? Or maybe I'll just stop here, and
> privately bemoan the limitations of English. :)
> 
> ---Rotan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rabin [mailto:jrabin@mtld.mobi]
> Sent: 10 June 2009 11:41
> To: Rotan Hanrahan; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> Subject: RE: MobileOK scheme
> 
> 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 12:06:57 UTC