Dear WAI Interest Group Participants,

We are interested in collecting experiences, stories, and perspectives
on people with disabilities using the Web via mobile devices. For
example: What are use cases of accessing the Web via a mobile device
that are particularly useful for a person with a disability? What are
unique issues accessing the Web via mobile device (versus desktop or
laptop) for people with disabilities?

We are also interested in similar information about Web access via
mobile device by “seniors”, older users who may have Web accessibility
needs related to aging. Are there cases when accessing the Web via a
mobile device is particularly useful for older users, or they have
unique issues using the Web via a mobile device?

Please note that we are limiting the scope of this query to *specific
accessibility issues using the Web*, and *not* more general hardware
issues, non-Web functionality, etc.

You can send your feedback to me, the WAI interest list or you can send them
to wai@w3.org.

Share it

The W3C has just published a first public working draft of a Relationship between Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines document. This document aims to bridge the gap between WCAG and the Mobile Web Best Practices by providing direct mappings between the guidelines. If you know what WCAG checkpoints your site conforms to, then this document will tell you what additional steps you need to take to also make it Mobile OK.

It’s a very useful document as it demonstrates just how little effort is actually required to make your website Mobile OK.

Share it

Next on the agenda is a vocabulary for the mobile web best practices and blogs.

If there is a code of conduct YOU would like seen turned into a content label vocabulary then drop me a message on http://contentlabel.org/ and we’ll try and cook one up

Share it

MOK is a claim that anyone can make if their Web site conforms to a defined subset of MWBPs. It comes in 2 flavors, Basic and Professional.

MOK Basic is a series of machine determinable tests and demonstrates that a Web site owner has made reasonable steps to create a mobile friendly user experience.

MOK Pro covers the best practices which are not necessarily machine testable. These are not yet available for public review.

W3C Candidate Recommendation means that the Mobile Web Inititiative (MWI) Working Group is happy with the document as it stands and is publishing it with the goal of getting real world implementation experience.

The MWI Working group has a task force who is charged with delivering a tool for checking MOK Basic conformance. This tool is currently in alpha and can be found here. Try it out yourself and see if your Web site is MOK compliant.

In my next post I’ll commentate on the test cases for the MobileOK Professional Trustmark which I’m heavily involved with. Making conformance claims to both levels of MobileOK will come in the form of a Content Label (AKA POWDER to the W3C).

Share it

Please refer to a recent post on this subject if you’re looking for hyperlinks to other resources.

I must declare an interest before commentating though. I’m a member of the W3C MWI Steering Council. Segala is not only one of the seven original Founding Sponsors, it’s also co-author of the conformance specification called mobleOK.

I must also declare that I’m particularly interested in mobileOK for two reasons. First, because it will help make the Web more accessible to more people, including those in developing countries where mobile is their primary access point to the Web. Secondly because making conformance claims about mobileOK will come in the form of a Content Label. As most of my readers will know, Content Labels underpin Segala’s business model of enabling trust on the Web based on compliance with standards and codes of conduct.

Now that I’ve got the disclaimer out of the way, whilst taking the opportunity to talk about Segala’s business proposition…

The Mobile Web vs WAP debate seems to crop up regularly as some people continue to protect their revenue stream from WAP, by claiming that the open Web on mobile devices is spawned by the devil.

The W3C MWI Best Practice Guidelines are of benefit to what some may call, traditional Web developers who know little if anything, about WAP or anything mobile. They simply want to build Web sites as they do today, but with the added benefit of them also working better on mobile devices.

Ok, so building mobile friendly Web sites isn’t easy and it’s not exactly perfect by a long shot. However, creating new standards is about future proofing. It’s not about creating a quick fix. They will continue to improve as will mobile technology, tariffs, bandwidth etc and has human behavior changes.

I met a guy tonight in Adam Street who very quickly (and wrongfully) *assumed* that I wanted to see the end of WAP as soon as I mentioned W3C MWI. I found him very defensive as if he were trying to protect his revenue stream, which comes from WAP and only WAP. I found his attitude to be very dismissive and typical of a WAP-centric extremist with no interest in anything outside of WAP. He is right to protect his revenue stream. I wouldn’t expect him to care about the future of the Web – that’s for us idealists to think about. Some of us get the commercials and some don’t. I’d like to think I’m in the former camp.

I reminded him that I never mentioned WAP, to which he replied, ‘yeah well the W3C is confusing developers’. First may I point out that there is room for both. Secondly, the W3C MWI in my opinion, is targeted at Web developers, not mobile developers. Accept the fact that mobile and Web developers are different. Some get both but most don’t.

The ‘one Web’ for me, is about bringing access to the current Web (hyperlinked documents as invented by Tim Berners-Lee) to mobile devices. It’s not about changing or impacting WAP sites which are developed specifically for mobile phones by mobile developers. There will always be a need to develop specifically for mobile devices. Likewise, there is a use case to develop one site that renders according to the device capability, whether that’s a desktop computer or a mobile device.

The W3C is being referred to as if it was wasting time/energy. May I point out that the W3C is made up of companies, government agencies, associations, universities, freelancers etc. from around the world. It’s not made up of a bunch of white coats at MIT. The W3C MWI includes every stake holder which has an interest in both traditional Web and mobile specifics.

The W3C is in my opinion the best and only consortium that should be responsible for creating and harmonizing *Web* standards – based on the assumption that it works with everyone who is qualified to contribute.

Share it

A debate has started on Vodafone’s BetaVine. If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you’ll know that Vodafone provided me with exclusive rights to seed interest in the wider industry to help launch the Portal, after providing advice prior to its launch. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find the time to continue commentating about it. Anyway, it’s doing exactly what I had hoped. It’s stimulating and supporting conversation within the industry. In this instance, it’s a heated debate which is likely to raise more awareness for the Portal if nothing else.

Luca Passani is the culprit (I mean that in the nicest possible way) responsible for starting the debate. If there’s one thing he’s good at, it’s starting a debate. Unfortunately he doesn’t know how to agree to disagree, or even respect the fact that he can sometimes be wrong.

My intention here is not to discuss the debate itself but instead, get people to use the right terminology. Ok, so my post about the correct spelling of Web site was a bit of a joke, but knowing the difference between WAP and the mobile Web is not, as it impacts end users for the worse.

It was a TechCrunch post that inspired me to write this note. I was about to post a comment but quickly realised that my message is important (and long) enough to warrant it’s own post. I’ve written about this previously where Luca has commented along with Google, Microsoft, .mobi, Opera and others. See here and here.

In my opinion, Luca has absolutely no interest in seeing the Web as we know it on the desktop, come to mobile phones. He is in favour of WAP and is an expert on the subject. WAP is not the mobile Web though, they are two entirely different technologies and he doesn’t have an appreciation for Web trends.

• WAP = sites built only for mobile phones
• Web = sites which should work on any device

WAP browsers and Web browsers look the same but what they display is completely different. One generates revenue for Operators and Content Providers and the other provides end users the ability to search and browse the Web. That’s why most end users don’t know the difference between a WAP site and a Web site. However, it’s not good enough to assume that they don’t care. It’s also wrong to assume they don’t want a choice.

In more detail
WAP sites are sites which have been built specifically to work on mobile phones. They do not work on desktop computers. This means if you come across a WAP site on your phone and wish to email the URL to a friend so they can see it at home, they can’t unless they’re using a mobile.

I used to own an LG Chocolate phone to demonstrate this point when giving presentations at conferences. I’d ask someone for the URL of their company Web site and then explain that it was impossible for me to view it on my new cool phone because it didn’t have a Web browser capable of displaying it.

Not all mobiles have browsers capable of displaying Web sites. Some phones come with a Web browser but it’s sometimes removed or hidden down the menu system by the Operator (not the manufacturer). Operators have always been extremely keen to keep it this way as they make money from WAP through revenue share deals with content providers.

It’s also worth mentioning that the Content Providers to which Luca and TechCrunch refer, are not likely to want users to access the Web (as invented by Tim Berners-Lee and harmonized by the W3C), as you do on a desktop computer. Otherwise they’ll stop making money through their commercial agreements with Operators. This means end users get whatever WAP sites Operators believe will generate the most revenue. This is not in the best interest of end users today.

It made sense to only offer WAP sites when mobiles were unable to display Web sites. It also makes sense to continue building WAP sites while mobile devices continue to improve, standards are adopted, prices come down, speeds improve and developers build Web sites so they work better on mobile devices.

In my opinion, we’re almost there. You only have to look at the recent launch of the iPhone to see what’s possible. It won’t be long before this capability is more widespread across more devices and the above points are addressed. As I keep saying, I’ve heard all the same arguments whilst at AOL in the mid 90′s. People use to say that online marketing would never take off because the Web was too slow, yada yada yada. The same type of people used to say that TV would never take off because it was so much smaller than the cinema screen.

End users do care about the difference between the two, or at least they would if told they were restricted to what the Operator wants them to see. Mobile stake holders make too many assumptions about what users want. That’s why the industry is so crap at getting it right.

So, can you see the difference between the two? If you had a mobile which stopped you from accessing the Web, would you care? Would you be happy to only view the WAP sites that your Operator forces upon you?

Please stop referring to WAP as mobile Web, it’s not. Just call it WAP.

From a customer point of view, you buy a mobile so you can surf the Web as you do from your desktop computer. Would you be happy to learn that you’re only able to use iMode, Live or other WAP sites?

Share it

This post has two messages.

1. Why I think the Web is likely to become more readily available with the launch of Apple’s iPhone as it acts as a new benchmark for the industry.
2. Why I’ve now got second thoughts about buying an iPhone.

End users now realising the difference between WAP (premium content created specifically for mobile phones) and the open Web is the main reason I think the iPhone will act as a new benchmark for the industry.

Take a look at the comments on an older post if you want to read what some very qualified people think. Be warned, the comments alone total more than 17,000 words, but as I said, they’re very qualified sources and people I respect from companies such as Microsoft, Google, .mobi, MobileAware and Opera.

Until now, I’ve been hearing the same argument against small screens, standard-less browsers, speeds and price points, as I did during my AOL days in the mid 90′s. People need to look forward. The growth rate of Mobile technology improvements in particular, is far greater than any other major landscape change in IT.

I also had a run in with the CTO of Mozilla (owner of Firefox) on the BIMA blog that I edit, but I was proved right when Mozilla canned it’s mobile browser just weeks after my post. Interestingly, I used the iPhone back then to demonstrate how the Web will appear on phones.

I also believe the iPhone will help the Web become more accessible to people in developing countries. I’m not saying people in India will now access the Web through an iPhone. What I am saying is that mobile vendors will now need to wake up and start designing phones are are more supportive of Web browsing and are extremely easy to use. Mobile networks are cheaper than fixed line networks, so users are more likely to use a mobile than a PC. As Bill Gates once said (either that or I had a dream and came up with a great quote):

If I had a choice, I’d put a mobile phone in the hands of every customer, not a PC.

BANGALORE, India (AFP) – Google vice president and chief Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf has predicted that mobile phones, not personal computers, will fuel growth of the worldwide web as countries like India snap up millions of handsets monthly.

From 50 million in 1997, the number of people who have logged onto the Internet has exploded to nearly 1.1 billion, Cerf, who is considered one of the founding fathers of the Internet, said Tuesday.

Yet, the Internet only reaches a sixth of the world’s population, Cerf told reporters during a visit to this southern city, known as India’s Silicon Valley, where Google has a research and development facility.

You will get those other 5.5 billion people only when affordability increases and the cost of communication goes down,” said Cerf, 63, who joined Google in 2005. “The mobile phone has become an important factor in the Internet revolution.

I can’t help but feel that Operators will soon be forced into providing lower data tariffs when customers demand and consume more data through surfing the Web also. The iPhone demonstrates that it is feasible to browse the Web from a small screen. It’s not just about the weather and train timetables as I’ve previously stated when debating with my colleagues in the W3C Mobile Web Initiative (where I’m a member of the Steering Council and Segala is a founding sponsor and co-editor of the conformance document).

So, will you buy an iPhone? Steve Clayton says he’s not interested. After reading his post, I was reminded of how much I really hated the LG Chocolate device, which also has a touch screen. In fact, his opinion persuaded me to rethink my position on the iPhone. The LG was so annoying that I still have marks on the wall where it received a well deserved bashing every other week. The trouble is, it took a while before I grew to hate it. I wonder if the same will be said for the iPhone.

Carly Taylor from mobile operator Three made a similar statement to Steve regarding the slow response of text messaging. In an email to the Mobile Monday list, Carl wrote

One point that takes away some of the shine for the cool types who will buy it for its looks:

• My experience was that the touch UI is poor for texting.
• No feel, and fingernails get in the way (bad for most women).
• For volume text addicts this will turn them off quickly.

This has also got me thinking, as it’s something that would bug the hell out of me. In fact, I think this issue alone would turn me off the iPhone.

So, my verdict is to wait for feedback from people who have used it as their daily lifestyle device for a few months. I’d like to hear what users think about the slow texting and annoying touch screen quirks when the novelty has worn off.

Are you going to buy one?

Share it