Re: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0

> Creating content that is as open as possible means making it available to
> the widest possible audience, which means that content should be adapted for
> a wide set of clients. This proves the opposite of what you claim here..
 
The phrase here ³wide set of clients²  could be synonymous in this
discussion with ³wide set of handsets² ‹ because different clients choose
different handsets. We have a reality in which the acquisition of devices
for voice and email purposes has caused a splintering diversity of
device-type. 
 
In this situation where there are many types of devices, educators look
around and see that there are a around a billion people who have the mobile
phones and have no other connection into the Internet. Wouldnıt it be
wonderful if we could deliver educational resources through these phones!
The devices essentially all can receive texting, so that is one way. They
will one day all host the Web. Perhaps there is an interim middle method to
format existing educational materials for the variety of handsets. Perhaps
there is not . . .
 
I donıt mean to start another loop, and apologize for that. My background is
having headed (1996-2001) the content of HomeworkCentral.com (became
BigChalk.com and was absorbed by ProQuest). I was able to hire graduate
students to select links to their academic subjects and to organize them in
interlinked packets by subject. We found 150,000+ links of academic
knowledge and organized 35,000+ subjects that were visited 4 million times
monthly by 2000. 
 
All of the links we collected were ³open content² ‹ that is freely
accessible online at no charge. Those links, and many more, are still out
there at MITıs open courseware, the Smithsonian, laboratories, expert
websites etc. etc.
 
Here, for example, is a Leonardo exhibit recently placed online by the
Institute and Museum of the History of Science in Florence, Italy
http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/menteleonardo/
 
As was true more than ten years ago, anyone with Internet access can enjoy
this handsome digital material from Florence about Leonard, including those
with Web featured phones. But for the upwards of a billion other people who
have no Web access but do have phones, perhaps there can be a common format
devised to deliver Leonardo, at least in part, now or soon. It could be a
format into which the scholars in Florence could revise their exhibit so
small screens, blackberries, Palms and the rest could interface some of the
knowledge.
 
Apologies if this is not the appropriate forum. Thanks for the chance to
express the thoughts.

Judy

Judy Breck
http://goldenswamp.com
212-734-1899
330 East 85th Street, Apt. 1B
New York NY 10028

on 5/4/06 7:04 PM, Luca Passani at luca.passani@openwave.com wrote:

> 
>> will we have to continue to tailor content
>> into an increasing splintering diversity of handsets, or will we insist on
>> and make happen a uniform platform for the delivery of all content. Walled
>> gardens are the former, html was the latter as the Internet spread.
> 
> What do you base this statement on? For example, I disagree. People buy
> phones to make phone calls. Some have simple black&white devices with small
> screen, others have PDAs and blackberrys with colors and big screen.
> Creating content that is as open as possible means making it available to
> the widest possible audience, which means that content should be adapted for
> a wide set of clients. This proves the opposite of what you claim here.
> 
> On a more general note, this kind of discussions has already generated lots
> of endless loops in the BPWG. If you really want one truly universal
> mark-up, WML 1.1 is what you need: it will work on virtually any device on
> the planet.
> If you don't like WML, XHTML Mobile Profile 1.0 will cut out a bunch of
> legacy device, but will deliver your basic content to mobile devices which
> hit the mark over the past 2 or 3 years. This is being described in the
> Mobile Web Best practices:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobile-bp-20060113/
> 
> As an aside, the BPWG agreed that "Best Practice" is a misnomer, since you
> get much better result if you actually adapt. This is hardly surprising:
> devices with a stylus could be better served with a UI that relies on
> "tabs". The same interface would be very hard to use with a
> scroll-and-select device.
> 
> In short, I don't think that starting the same discussion here would bring
> us very far.
> 
> Luca
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of judy breck
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:51 PM
> To: Tim Berners-Lee; public-ddwg@w3.org
> Cc: tag
> Subject: Re: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0
> 
> 
> Earlier this week I wrote to Rotan Harahan, who suggested our line of
> discussion continue here. What I proposed to him follows.
>  
> As an Internet education veteran and author, and with support from The
> William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, I am looking at the potential of
> mobile phones to deliver open educational resources. (Hewlett has provided
> major funding for the MIT Open Courseware and other Web projects creating
> and hosting high quality, free academic content on the Web.)
>  
> Mobile phones are diminishing the digital divide in developing countries for
> business enterprises. The same could be happening for learning.
> Implementation of devices will affect how much and how well learning
> materials are delivered via mobile phones.
>  
> My question for this group is: will we have to continue to tailor content
> into an increasing splintering diversity of handsets, or will we insist on
> and make happen a uniform platform for the delivery of all content. Walled
> gardens are the former, html was the latter as the Internet spread. Mobile
> devices have not been developed around a common content denominator like
> html. Must we accept a future where technical and business fiefdoms
> determine content configuration, or can we come up with a content platform
> to which the fiefdoms must conform to take part in the medium?
>  
> I suggest that our bottom line challenge is as soon as possible to create
> the mobile device as a content neutral receptor for One Web. On my
> GoldenSwamp.com blog I have described and illustrated a Mobilists Challenge
> for learning content along these lines.
> http://goldenswamp.com/2006/04/27/the-mobilist-challenge/
>  
> I would suggest to this group, that in terms at least of learning content,
> there be these three goals:
>  
> 1. Work in the transitional mobile device present toward a One Web future
> where content does not have to be separately created for different computer
> formats (PC, mobile, etc.)
> 2. Establish a content common denominator for the transitional present in
> which open learning content can be offered on every handset via every
> vendor. (Something nonproprietary that functions along the lines of
> FlashLite should be used by all, with no walled gardens for academic
> content.)
> 3. Effect a lowest-end standard and capability for immediate delivery of
> content to the simplest phones. (Perhaps that is simply to use texting.)
> There are millions of potential learners in developing countries (and
> neighborhoods) who now own mobile phones and could use technically low-end
> delivered tutorials while they await the One Web mobile future.
> 
> Judy Breck
> http://goldenswamp.com
> 212-734-1899
> 330 East 85th Street, Apt. 1B
> New York NY 10028
> 
> 
> 
> 


--

Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 14:24:56 UTC