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

RE: MobileOK scheme

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:18:10 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B401FF3691@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
> It seems to be an improvement, but I specifically object to that things
> which provide an enhanced experience for better browsers are not
> mobileOK,
> or even are likely not to be MobileOK.
If you provide a response that is wider than 120px in response to a User Agent of DDR that is not mobileOK. If you provide the same response when the User Agent is not the DDR then it's neither mobileOK nor not mobileOK.

I don't understand your objection which seems to be rather to do with mobileOK Basic Tests than this document.

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com]
> Sent: 15 June 2009 18:52
> To: Jo Rabin; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> Subject: Re: MobileOK scheme
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:59:38 +0200, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> 
> > I think we are talking at crossed purposes here.
> >
> >> I am saying that providing an enhanced experience to more powerful
> >> devices is mobileOK (and is recommended behaviour). In other words,
> >> that it
> >
> > No it's not mobileOK, but it is recommended behaviour..
> 
> To be even more precise - it is not defined as being MobileOK or not,
> since...
> 
> > mobileOK is specifically and narrowly defined to be the ability, in
> the
> > right circumstances, to deliver a DDC compatible experience as
> adjudged
> > by the mobileOK Tests 1.0 Recommendation.
> >
> > It is a Best Practice to do more than this, but the result is
> unlikely
> > to be mobileOK.
> 
> Why not? If done as recommended, I see no reason for it not to be
> mobileOK. (And if we simply say that mobileOK refers to fictitious
> devices, while what developers really do and need to do is not
> mobileOK,
> then I question the work we have put into this).
> 
> > See if you like the revision proposed later in this thread.
> 
> It seems to be an improvement, but I specifically object to that things
> which provide an enhanced experience for better browsers are not
> mobileOK,
> or even are likely not to be MobileOK.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
> 
> > Jo
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com]
> >> Sent: 10 June 2009 17:39
> >> To: Jo Rabin; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> >> Subject: Re: MobileOK scheme
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:55:23 +0200, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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?
> >>
> >> I am saying that providing an enhanced experience to more powerful
> >> devices
> >> is mobileOK (and is recommended behaviour). In other words, that it
> >> necessarily is not non-mobileOK to do so. (Breaking things for DDC
> is
> >> nonMobileOK. Improving them for better browsers is mobileOK and
> >> strongly
> >> recommended).
> >>
> >> > Surely, if the higher tier experiences are mobileOK they'd also be
> >> > provided to the lower-tier devices?
> >>
> >> No. What is provided to lower-tier devices is restricted in ways
> that
> >> were
> >> carefully designed not to preclude providing higher-tier systems
> with
> >> more.
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> No. It would be better if you said
> >>
> >> It is expected (and encouraged) that content providers, as well as
> >> targetting DDC level devices with appropriately delivered content,
> will
> >> enable richer experiences for more advanced mobile browsers.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> Chaals
> >>
> >> > ?
> >> >
> >> > 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

> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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

> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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 Monday, 15 June 2009 18:18:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:01 UTC