RE: MobileOK scheme

I agree too.

+1 too.

--- Jonathan Jeon 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 5:33 PM
To: Manrique Lopez; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
Subject: RE: MobileOK scheme

> If your solution "take full advantage of knowledge of device and
> browser
> capabilities" why wouldn't be labeled as mobileOK ??

It won't be excluded from mobileOK if it does that. We will all applaud it as following Best Practice.

It will be awarded mobileOK if, in the presence of the relevant accept headers, it provides a representation that passes all the mobileOK tests. If, in the presence of those request headers, the tests are not passed then it won't. What it does in the presence of other headers is not relevant to mobileOK, which is *just* a test that a site is *capable* of providing a mobileOK representation. In what circumstances it does, or does not provide that representation - *other* than when the relevant headers are received - is not part of the test either.

Can we please move this conversation on to discussing how the current text should be adjusted for clarity.

Current Text: [1]

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.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20090610.html#sec_Default_Delivery_Context


Currently Proposed New Text:

" 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 experiences for more advanced mobile devices that have capabilities not supported by the DDC."

New Proposed New text (with added oomph):

" 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 Best Practice [CAPABILITIES][2]  for content providers, as well as targetting DDC level devices, also to provide experiences for more advanced mobile devices that have capabilities not supported by the DDC."

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#CAPABILITIES


Objections?

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Adopt above text for clarification that advanced experiences for non DDC devices do not disqualify sites from achieving mobileOK, and indeed this is what we'd like them to do.

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manrique Lopez [mailto:manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org]
> Sent: 16 June 2009 08:13
> To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA
> Cc: Charles McCathieNevile; Jo Rabin; Mobile Web Best Practices Working
> Group WG
> Subject: RE: MobileOK scheme
> 
> El lun, 15-06-2009 a las 20:18 +0200, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA
> escribió:
> > I totally agree with Chaals's points, I'm a bit concerned that a
> mobile site developed with MyMobileWeb, for example, that will take
> full advantage of knowledge of device and browser capabilities would
> not be labeled as mobileOK
> >
> 
> If your solution "take full advantage of knowledge of device and
> browser
> capabilities" why wouldn't be labeled as mobileOK ??
> 
> When the browser identifies as DDC[1], can't your solution offer the
> most suitable presentation for it?
> 
> We have a "device aware" site adaptation solution, and following "one
> web" principle, we try to offer "mobileOK" sites while it exploits
> device capabilities.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/#http_request

> 
> 
> > Best Regards
> > ________________________________________
> > De: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [public-bpwg-request@w3.org] En nombre
> de Charles McCathieNevile [chaals@opera.com]
> > Enviado el: lunes, 15 de junio de 2009 19:52
> > Para: Jo Rabin; Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> > Asunto: 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

> >
> >
> --
> José Manrique López de la Fuente <manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org>
> Área de Tecnología
> Fundación CTIC
> Web: http://www.fundacionctic.org

> Tel: (+34) 984 29 12 12
> Parque Científico Tecnológico de Gijón
> Edificio Centros Tecnológicos
> Cabueñes s/n
> 33203 GIJÓN - ASTURIAS - ESPAÑA

Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 00:51:54 UTC