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

Re: MobileOK scheme

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:06:12 +0200
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uvkx0mouwxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:18:10 +0200, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

>> 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.

Right. Which is different from "it is not mobileOK".

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

No, it is with the specific phrasing that says "doing a really good job is  
not mobileOK", rather than saying "doing a good job can also be mobileOK  
and is encouraged in the overall work behind mobileOK".

cheers

Chaals

> 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



-- 
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 19:06:57 UTC

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