task
stringlengths 12
101
| input
stringlengths 5
5.87k
| output
stringlengths 1
5.47k
| options
sequence | pageTitle
stringlengths 0
151
| outputColName
stringlengths 1
142
| url
stringlengths 24
147
| wdcFile
stringlengths 71
75
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-426 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 11 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: General Comment: You don\'t have any normative references. Is this intended, and if yes, why? [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Yes, it is intended as the document is non normative. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-427 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 12 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: General Comment: In sec. 4.2, you describe the structure of Best Practice Statements\". Nevertheless, many Best Practice Statements leave parts of this structure out. Will this be changed in a future version of this document? [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | No, as some of the sections are not applicable to some of the best practices. We have clarified that "what to test" is left out on non-testable best practices. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-429 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 14 At link Editorial/substantive: S Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 5.2.7 [link] Comment: Please mention that if in the content there is a link to something which is not in the same language, it would be good to make it explicit. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have mentioned "language" as being one of thing worth mentioning as part of the LINK_TARGET_FORMAT: "Links to content that is in a different format or different language to that of the page the link is on (i.e. content that can only be interpreted by other applications or downloads) should be human signposted" | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-432 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 17 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 5.4.13.2 [link] Comment: \"Please consider proposing that it would help bandwidth to store standard messages in the device itself, rather than download them each time.\" [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Recommending that HTTP errors be handled by the device itself would go contrary to the web architecture (e.g. preventing the content provider to give detailed information to the user as to what the error is and what may have caused it). | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-437 Al Gilman on behalf of WAI [Comment] User Agent (browser) developers are participants in the mobile value chain. The user agents for mobile devices should conform with UAAG [1] guidelines as appropriate. This is especially true now that some mobile devices have add-on assistive technology such as screen readers. The document's purpose is aimed more at content developers rather than the tools to render the content. Underlying this purpose is a continuing discussion of the limitations of the devices and user agents involved (such as screen size, color depth, input limitations, memory, etc.) [linkage opportunity from WAI document] (1) I can imagine a full version of the doc playing the same role in the ATAG conformance model that WCAG does (i.e. as a standard that an authoring tool guides the author towards conformance with). Perhaps a note to this effect can be put into ATAG 2.0. [linkage opportunity from MWBP document] (2) Clearly all the adaptive stuff in the doc would require authoring tool support. Therefore, the Mobile Web group might consider putting in an informative note about the role of authoring tools (and ATAG) just as WCAG has. This is the text of the WCAG 2.0 note: " A large part of Web content is created using authoring tools. These tools often determine how Web content is implemented, either by making authoring decisions directly or by limiting the choices available to the author. As a result, authoring tools will play an important role in creating Web content that conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. At the same time, we recommend that all authors become familiar with the Guidelines because this will help in creating accessible content and coverage of the Guidelines may vary between tools. Developers of authoring tools can help to make their tools more aware of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines by following the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines. We encourage users and purchasers of authoring tools to consider conformance to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines as a criterion when selecting tools. " [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We think that UAAG is out of scope as the document is about delivered content rather than user agents. But after further discussion with the WAI CG, we have added an appendix (Appendix B, Related Reading) linking to the existing WAI Guidelines and Techniques. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-439 Al Gilman on behalf of WAI [Comment] 5.29 Refreshing, Redirection, and Spawned Windows should reference UAAG 2.4 Allow time-independent interaction (P1) - 1. For rendered content where user input is only possible within a finite time interval controlled by the user agent, allow configuration to provide a view where user interaction is time-independent. UAAG 3.5 Toggle automatic content retrieval (P1) 1. Allow configuration so that the user agent only retrieves content on explicit user request. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We think this is out of scope since we are not addressing user agents in the document. But after further discussion with the WAI CG, we have added an appendix (Appendix B, Related Reading) linking to the existing WAI Guidelines and Techniques. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-440 Al Gilman on behalf of WAI [Comment] 5.3.7 Background Images should reference UAAG 3.1 Toggle background images (P1) - 1. Allow configuration not to render background image content. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have removed that Best Practice, since it didn't have a mobile-specific aspect. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-441 Al Gilman on behalf of WAI [Comment] 5.4.3 Structural Elements should reference UAAG 10.4 Provide outline view (P2) - 1. Make available to the user an "outline" view of rendered content, composed of labels for important structural elements (e.g., heading text, table titles, form titles, and other labels that are part of the content). [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | Out of scope since we are not addressing user agents in the document. But after further discussion with the WAI CG, we have added an appendix (Appendix B, Related Reading) linking to the existing WAI Guidelines and Techniques. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-364 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] 1. The title of the document is somewhat confusing. The present document is definitely not about best practices for mobile network and system capacity optimization for reliable mobile Web access or other, related technical issues. As the document is providing best design practices of Web sites accessed through a mobile network and a telecommunication terminal, we suggest the title to be updated to “Best Usability Practices for Mobile Web Sites” (in accordance with the last sentence in chapter 1.3.2). [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We take your point, but this is the title established by the Group's charter. We have sub-titled the document "basic guidelines" to convey the idea that many more advices could be given. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-365 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] We have the impression that the development process of this draft was somewhat forced to be somewhat too fast. We would recommend to leave more time for stakeholder’s involvement and qualitative fine-tuning, when developing future deliverables. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The development of this draft has been somewhat faster than is customary. This is intentional. This is primarily a practical rather than theoretical art and we think there will be great benefit from feedback from implementation. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-369 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] A terminology issue: a device does not necessarily have a network connection and a user interface (e.g. a pencil or a wrist watch). We would like to know if this is defined differently for the purpose of this document (the definition is not included in the draft). Otherwise, we consider proposing to use “devices with a network connection and a user interface”, or simply, “terminals”, in the entire document. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We do not wish to limit the scope to connected devices. For example, a periodically synchronised device requires the same best practices for display of web content. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-372 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 1.3, Scope: The WCAG guidelines reference should be more specific, refer to the latest version or relate to the WAI guidelines family, where applicable. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We refer only to ratified documents and not to works in progress. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-373 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 1.3.2, Usability: - There are more than three aspects of mobile usability but there are three aspects of mobile Web usability (add “Web”). - The relation between these aspects should be described in detail (not only their individual characteristics). This description should include accessibility. - Site usability is not only about effectiveness (see definition of Usability). [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have removed the section on usability. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-376 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 2.1, Presentation Issues: In addition to the controls not being presented as intended, other issues such as the lack of the necessary interaction control elements and functions should be mentioned. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We feel that the section is sufficently detailed to convey the sense that is intended. It is supposed to background material rather than and exhaustive explanation. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-377 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 2.2, Input: “…hard to type…” should be replaced by “…difficult to enter…”. As this is a far more complex issue than just entering characters, aspects relating to the support, handling, mapping, sorting and transmission of characters should be addressed. This change should also be considered with respect to the fact that speech technology enables and improves access to ICT (including mobile terminal devices and the mobile Web) for disabled people (e.g. people with upper limb impairments) and very young children, who will be able to input data and interact with mobile devices through speech user interfaces. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | This is background overview section and is not intended to be an exhaustive explanation. We deal with speech/voice in Phase 2. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-378 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 2.3, Bandwidth and Cost: In addition to transmission speed, there are setup, configuration, access right, reliability, home network cost issues and roaming cost issues involved. These should be addressed or at least, mentioned. See also comment on chapter 1.3.3 above. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | This is background overview section and is not intended to be an exhaustive explanation. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-379 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 2.4, User Goals: The first sentence should be rewritten. See also comment on chapter 1.3.3 above. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Please suggest a rewrite or specifics if you think this is especially problematic. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-381 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 3, Delivery Model Architecture: The entire section after “3” should be numbered separately (e.g. made 3.1 Introduction). [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | It is the document convention to have introductory text following major headings. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-382 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 5.1.1.2, How to do it: The references should be made more explicit. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | This BP has been removed. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-389 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Annex A, Sources (Non-Normative): It would be highly desirable to reference WCAG 2.0 (under drafting) instead of the outdated 1.0 version from 1999. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We refer only to ratified recommendations. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-261 Ian Jacobs [Comment] I suggest "This document only includes best practices that primarily affect mobile access to the Web." You may also wish to have a look at some of the verbiage insection 3of UAAG 1.0 (on Conformance). For instance, adapting this text might be useful: "The UAWG expects conformance this document to be a strong indicator of accessibility, but it may be neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for ensuring the accessibility of software. Thus, some software may not conform to this document but still be accessible to some users with disabilities. Conversely, some software may conform to this document but still be inaccessible to some users with disabilities. Some requirements of this document may not benefit some users for some content, but the requirements are expected to benefit many users with disabilities, for general purpose content." [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We feel that this is not required, as the document is informative. The work on conformance (and the related disclaimers) will be done in the mobileOK trustmark document. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-262 Ian Jacobs [Comment] A very important feature of the WAI Guidelines is that they work together to identify different responsibilities among authors, user agent designers, format designers, and authoring tool designers. WCAG does not hold up well in some cases when browsers don't take advantage of features that authors expect to be supported. Does the MWI BP WG plan to produce other guidelines than these content guidelines? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | In the document we refer to Techniques and MobileOK which are currently being written. We can also imagine adaptation guidelines but we are not sure of the exact course. There's also a new User Agent test initiative but it hasn't started yet so we can't reference it. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-269 Ian Jacobs [Comment] As you'll see below, I think you may wish to refer to some of the guidance of theUser Agent Accessibility Guidelinesas well. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We are talking about site usability rather than user agent or device usability, so refering to the User Agent Accessibility guidelines is out of scope (and could possibly create confusion). | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-272 Ian Jacobs [Comment] I think the problem is that it's hard to type, period. People should not be typing URIs anyway; they should be using search engines and following links. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The fact is there remains occasions where the user may have to type a URI (e.g. a not yet indexed site, a non-linked from the outside intranet, following an ad seen on a bus, ...) and that this has proven to be a difficulty to get people even trying to use the Web on mobile devices, so it's definitely worthy to be noted here. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-274 Ian Jacobs [Comment] I note that the previous concern also holds for many desktop environments, including very common one likes in companies or libraries where people often cannot install arbitrary software or configure their machines freely. Is this even more frequent on a mobile device? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | Yes, this is true. However, the contrast is that it is usually expected that personal devices to be configurable; while the mobile phone is very much a personal device, it's rarely configurable. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-275 Ian Jacobs [Comment] Does this mean that you will have best practices for error handling below to avoid incomplete display or other problems? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We do have a best practice on the size of pages to send to a mobile device to avoid this memory limitations problems. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-286 Ian Jacobs [Comment] Ah, that last sentence is already more informative in my opinion. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | Capabilities has been removed | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-292 Ian Jacobs [Comment] That last sentence is a good place to start for this entire document. But there are other sentences that talk about One Web that might be pithier. I think you can drop "as is practical" and all similar qualifiers in favor of a section in the document about the general authoring context. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We think "as is practical" does convey the message that the Working Group has in mind; note that this document is informative and aims at providing guidance to authors, not imposing very specific rules - that will be done in the mobileOK trustmark. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-310 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * How does this apply to prefetching? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The idea is to be mindful of the users' costs etc and not send them advertising and so on that is not relevant to their needs and at their expense. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-312 Ian Jacobs [Comment] The previous paragraph is not the same as "limit content to what the user has requested." It is separate advice for good authoring for the Web generally: Front-load pages with important information. You make this point later on, so I think you should move this explanation to later in the document. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have linked CENTRAL_MEANING and CLARITY since they both address the same range of topics. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-320 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * I think it is very important that this document adopt the language used by the WCAG WG. They have spent a very long time discussing this topic. For instance, for the first point, copying from the 23 Nov 2005 Draft,section 1.3.1: "When information is conveyed by color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate colors." If you have a reason to say something other than what WCAG 2.0 says, please explain below. (In general, if another W3C Recommendation says what you want, whether it is WCAG 2.0 or UAAG 1.0, Webarch, or another document please use that language or be sure to explain why you have chosen not to.) [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We reference WCAG 1.0 because this is the current W3C Recommendation. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-323 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * A theme has emerged: "Keep it short". I think you have points related to shortness of URIs, titles, and pages. Perhaps they can be merged. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We don't think there are enough benefits in re-organizing the document around this kind of grouping to justify the cost of actually doing it. Also, this allows to put the focus on specific concerns rather than on general principles. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-324 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please provide a bit more rationale, as in "Because they are not widely supported in the mobile context and also are widely known to be problematic for users, do not use HTML frames." [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The text already reads: "Many mobile clients do not support frames. In addition, frames are recognized as being generally problematic." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-326 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * This is another instance of "Don't do X" when you are outside the default delivery context; regroup with those? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | As already noted, we don't think the benefits of grouping outweighs the costs. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-328 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please provide more rationale for this one, which I did not understand when I first read it. Something like this might help: "Because mobile devices have limited processing capabilities, make available small versions of images rather than require resizing after delivery." [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The text already reads: "Resizing images at the server [...] reduces amount of data transferred and the amount of processing the client has to carry out to scale the image." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-329 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Adding more rationale: "To enable flexible display, use relative units (e.g., "em") rather than absolute units (e.g., pixels) when specifying dimensions (e.g., shapes or font sizes) in formats such as markup languages and style sheets." [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The text already reads: "Avoiding pixel and absolute measures allows the browser to adapt content to fit the display." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-337 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Delete "where possible" * Provide more rationale: "Because text entry is time-consuming and prone to error, avoid interfaces (such as text entry boxes) in favor of other types of controls (e.g., menus or radio buttons). [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The text already reads: "Given the typical input limitations of a mobile device the interface must as far as possible minimize user input. Where possible, use selection lists, radio boxes and other user interface artifacts that do not require typing." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-338 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Delete "where possible" [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | As noted above, this leeway is intended given the document focus on guidance rather than mandated rules. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-347 Werner Egipsy Souza (Jataayu Software) on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] _3.7 Advantages:_ The mobile device has added advantages compared to a desktop or a laptop, which are: 1. Always On:This device is always on, and always has phone connectivity. Hence websites have the ability to directly connect a user with a phone number, or IP address, if the requirement exists. 2. Accessibility to near field devices, via infrared, Wi-fi, bluetooth and USB(but this option is far less used!), such as car audio systems, music players, cameras, gaming devices. 3. Added capability for Wearable computing , where the mobile device may communicate with other devices, using the means mentioned above. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | 1. Always on is a feature of many devices aside from Mobile Devices. Data connectivity from mobile devices is usually only established on demand by an active application. 2 and 3. We think that these aspects are out of scope of the Mobile Web. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-362 Werner Egipsy Souza on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] 2.6 Device Limitations The word \"Device Limitations\" is not right, The main interest here, should be to to first make note of the fact that the mobile device, has an evolution which is very isolated from the evolution of the PC. The mobile device was evolved from the Telephone, rather than the Desktop PC. Hence, the mobile device as it currently exists, is an advancement of Graham Bell\'s invention, rather than a downgrade of Charles Babbage\'s invention. Where it goes, from there, is an advancement to a cornerstone of the virtual, online, World. The mobile device is slowly becoming a key component of the wearable computing phenomena, where multiple devices, will use the mobile device as a central point of control and storage. Hence \"Differences between the mobile device and the computer\" would be the right word to use. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We think that device limitations is the correct way to make the contrast between the capabilities of a mobile device and those of the desktop, for an audience that is used to delivering content to desktops. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-363 Werner Egipsy Souza on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] 2.7 Advantages A point to add: The mobile is destined to be a universal point of data storage, and execution, rather than a data creator. This is greatly due to the various means of device-device communication available to the mobile, such as the operator network, Wi-fi, Infrared, Bluetooth, audio ports and USB ports. 5.2.6 Access KeysAccess keys, should be made accessible, according to prevalent usability standards. One standard, would be that page up and Page Down keys, must be permanently hard-coded, to make navigation of a page, less arduous. One suggested implementation, is to use a slider key for the volume, during the phone mode. Then, when the browser is activated, use the same slider key as a Page Up-Down key. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | 2.7 We're not clear that this is indeed an advantage that is relevant to this phase of Mobile Web Best Practices. 5.2.6 We think this refers to the User Agent and hence out of scope of this document. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-400 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.1.3 Work around deficient implementations “It is recognized that content providers may need to violate specific best practices in order to support their intentions on devices that exhibit deficiencies in implementation. If a device is not known to have specific limitations then content providers must comply with best practices” My question is the use of “must comply” is a bit strong, because there can be cases where developers and the W3C differ in opinion on whether a certain device has limitations. In areas where interpretations differ this may prevent the developer from getting the “mobileOK” mark. Who and or how are agreements going to be made about when a device is known to have specific limitations? [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We say that this is relevant when the device does not respect the author's intentions. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-434 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 19 At link Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 5.4.12 Comment: The document doesn\'t say that the encoding should be expressed using the HTTP header, so the test should not assume that either. It should probably say something along the lines of \"Check that the encoding is declared. This could be done in the HTTP header or the XML declaration for documents served as XML, or in the HTTP header or the Content-Type meta element for documents served as HTML, or in the HTTP header or the @charset statement for CSS stylesheets.\" [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added the additional tests to execute in the "what to test" section. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-435 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 20 At link Editorial/substantive: S Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: 5.5.1 Comment: \"Specification of the natural language in use assists with predictive text input.\" It is unclear to us whether this refers to standard mechanisms in X/HTML to declare language, or to a declaration specific to input modes. That should be made clearer. (If you were referring to input mode settings, we feel it would also be useful to encourage declaration of the language used in content using standard mechanisms, since that assists with not only predictive text input, but also styling, font selection, etc.) Whatever the above refers to, this section contains no other information about how to do it, and how to test for it. This should be added. (The i18n tutorial Declaring Language in XHTML and HTML [link] may be helpful here for you to understand what i mean by \'standard mechanisms...\'.) [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have removed the sentence about "the specification of the natural language", clarified that we meant definition of input mode settings, added the relevant tests. We haven't added the encouragement of the declaration of the language as this doesn't have a specific mobile aspect. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-390 on behalf of Nokia [Comment] 5.2.3 Balanced Structure It is not clear, whether this is indicating some mathematical balance. We believe a site should be \"balanced semantically or by importance.\" It makes no sense to always make the depth of all links similar. In fact, the first links should be directly to commonly-used information, while later links may lead to a deeper tree of less-often-used features. This is really important to explain well. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have substantially reworded the Best Practice on balance to clarify that the balance was between the number of links per pages and the number of pages the user has to download to go to his or her intended result. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-391 on behalf of Nokia [Comment] 5.3.3 Scrolling There could be a stricter recommendation: Limit scrolling while reading a single text flow to one direction. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have simplified the pair of Best Practices on scrolling into a single best practice, recommending not allow secondary scrolling unless necessary. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-392 on behalf of Nokia [Comment] 5.3.5 Graphics Proposal for adding a statement [MANY_GRAPHICS]. Avoid many images in one page, because each request on a wireless network adds significant latency compared to fixed networks. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We agreed with this additional principle and generalized it in the Best Practice "EXTERNAL_RESOURCES". | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-374 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 1.3.3, One Web: With the currently available technologies and implementations (and considering the product generation gaps), it is not always desirable, beneficial nor affordable to consumers to access the same information, provided on the same format, regardless of the access network and device. Although technology will improve continuously, consumer requirements will be strongly influenced by the context of mobile use (on the move, limited screen and keyboard, disturbing environment, et cetera), will not change that radically. Due to the context of mobile use, terminal capability variations, bandwidth issues, access rights and mobile network capabilities, this principle should be reconsidered. Even if it is easier to develop content for one Web, there are specific issues that need to be addressed. Providing a good and affordable mobile Web user experience becomes even more important to roaming consumers (presently, there is no low-cost global roaming tariff plan for mobile data devices). We would like to discuss the approach taken and would appreciate to hear your arguments for the “One Web” approach taken. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We already address these issues, but we have slightly revised part of the One Web definition to be more explicit and use the word "representation" (as defined in the DI glossary) in the following text: "As discussed in [Scope] One Web means making, as far as is reasonable, the same information and services available to users irrespective of the device they are using. However it does not mean that exactly the same information is available in exactly the same representations across all devices. This is due to issues such as the context of mobile use, terminal capability variations, bandwidth issues and mobile network capabilities. Furthermore, some services and information are more suitable for and targeted at particular user contexts." We have also added a link to the Thematic Consistency Best Practice, which give more context on this point. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-375 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 1.4, Default Delivery Context: More detailed specifications should be provided. In addition, possible fall-back solutions should be mentioned. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added links to the details of the specifications referenced in the default delivery context. The fall-back solutions belongs in the techniques document. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-384 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 5.2.1, URIs of Site Entry Points: The recommendation should be updated to cover aspects of direct manipulation (clickable) and character entry support. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added a note on non-URI-typing access to a web site: "it is expected that users will prefer to use alternative methods of obtaining URIs when available - such as following a hyperlink (from an e-mail, SMS or other Web page), WAP Push, 2D bar code, color bar code, RFID tag and Bluetooth." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-387 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 5.2.6.1, What it means: This is a far more complex problem than just the limited keyboard (12-key keypads and soft-and hardware-based keyboards should be covered). In addition, aspects relating to the support, handling, mapping, sorting and transmitting characters should be addressed. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | This is a specific best practice on use of "access keys" whose support is known to be quite uniform across mobile devices. We have added a clarification on the limitations of these accesskeys and the devices keyboards: "When building a list of links use numbered lists and assign access keys appropriately. It is recognized that not all characters can be used as access keys as many mobile devices have a limited keyboard." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-357 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] 2. Colours: There are a number of interpretations of "websafe" colours - please provide a reference that unambiguously states which colours are expected to be available. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added the definition that a Web safe color as one which has Red/Green/Blue components chosen only from the values 0, 51, 102, 153, 204, and 255. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-359 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] 4. HTTP It is not clear that any transport protocol is guaranteed on the device. Given the requirements to support the regular web, and in particular such things as 30x HTTP responses, it would be appropriate to specify a level of HTTP support in the default characteristics. mobile space as a best practice? [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We do say in 1.3 "From the perspective of this document this means that services should be available as some variant of HTML over HTTP." but indeed HTTP wasn't part of the default delivery context. We have added HTTP 1.0 as part of the default delivery context. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-360 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] 5. Style sheets XHTML Basic does not include any support for internal styles. It makes sense, given the problems of latency that are a key constraint in the mobile space, to mandate support for internal styling, but it is not clear from the current wording what support can be expected (and therefore, as an implementor, what support we are implicitly being required to provide). [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have clarified the default delivery context, and now it only allows external style sheet as required by XHTML Basic. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-361 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] There are many types of content which do not require any adaptation. There is no point in these services determining any kind of context. Further, there is no point in determining context in any circumstances for a service that cannot make use of the information. This is not a best practice in itself, merely a technique that can be used to meet some others. In addition, as has been noted by others, having it appear first gives an impression of a strong bias against the one web goal stated elsewhere. cheers Chaals [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We agreed with this and moved this Best Practice as a technique. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-396 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] BP Not covered: 3. Use Device-independent event triggers in HTML, the onmouse* and onkey* triggers are somewhat difficult to trigger from the range of devices available. onclick is generally implemented in such a way that any device can trigger it, and mutation events (form changes, page load, etc) do not rely on a particular user interface anyway. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added the following sentence in the "how to do it" section: If scripting is used, do not use onmouse and onkey triggers, use onclick. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-397 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] BP Not covered: 4. Balance page weight and latency In a number of cases it will be appropriate to provide a choice between a large page and the same page broken into appropriate chunks. (Browsers like Opera mini will in any case break a page into appropriate sized pieces for phones that need this done). It can also be important to decide what resources to include externally, and which to include in the page. Use of the data: URI scheme can allow small images to be included inline (as can SVG where supported by the browser), and stylesheets and scripts can likewise be incorporated in the page, reducing latency effects caused by fetching multiple resources, or linked to allow efficiency from decisions on whether to load them and from caching. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We agree and have added a new best practice to that effect (EXTERNAL_RESOURCES), which combined with the BALANCE Best Practice covers the suggestion. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-408 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] The requirement expressed by [CONTEXT] is only necessary for some kinds of sites - it is really a technique that needs to be used to meet some other requirements in certain circumstances. In addition, having it first in the list of best practices suggests that there is a huge amount of work to be done in order to deliver any worthwhile content to the mobile web that is not required on the web in general. This is simply not true as a general statement. cheers Chaals [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The group agreed and decided to drop this as a Best Practice. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-409 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] There may be some other exceptions required to this, for borders and margins. These are commonly specified in pixels, and this may be appropriate in a number of cases. cheers Chaals [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have noted that borders and margins may sometimes usefully be specified in pixels. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-415 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] There are some types of image, such as SVG, where a pixel-based size is unnecessary or inappropriate. In such cases it is often appropriate to use CSS to specify width/height rather than HTML attributes. cheers Chaals [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have clarified that only images with an intrinsic size should have their dimensions specified in the markup. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-345 Dan Connolly [Comment] This draft is better than previous drafts in that it has an explicit "One Web" section. But the first best-practice guideline is still: "[CONTEXT] Take all reasonable steps to find out about the device/browser (client) capabilities, adaptation and other transformation that takes place for any instance of an access to a resource." -- link Guideline #1 should be: design for device-independence. Or something like that. In simple cases, one HTML document should work well across a variety of devices. But even for high-profile sites with dedicated production staff, where server-side content adaptation is worthwhile, designing for device independence is still a good idea; lots of content and navigation should be shared across devices. Ah... 5.2.4 Thematic Consistency of Resource Identified by a URI Much better. How about starting with that one? It's a bit of a mouthful, though. I don't see much justification for "... find out capabilities..." and I notice there's no "what to test" subsection for it. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Thematic Consistency has been moved as the first Best Practice in the latest draft. Design for device independence, does not have a specific mobile interpretation, it does not appear to be testable and it is hard to know what techniques one would cite to support it, unless it is the totality of the techniques that we suggest in support of the best practices. We've removed the [CONTEXT] Best Practices as it did not appear to fit well with the other best practices, and has been moved as a technique instead. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-344 Elliotte Harold [Comment] Section 5.3.7 states: [BACKGROUND_IMAGE_SUPPORT] Do not use background images unless you know the device supports them. (Normative) I don't see any reasoning in the document to justify this one, and I can't think of any myself. Won;t a device that doesn't support background images simply ignore them without any detrimental effects? I can;t think of any examples in practice where the background image was a critical part of the content. This feels like it would degrade gracefully. At a minimum, I would ask that this normative rule be explained more. But if there's no good explanation for this, then this rule could simply be dropped. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The group agreed this Best Practice wasn't very relevant and decided to remove it. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-264 Ian Jacobs [Comment] The terms "easily" and "efficiently" are almost unused in the document. In my opinion that do not add much information where they are used and might be safely deleted from this part of the document and from the best practices below. I suspect this entire section could be reduced without significant loss of information to the following: The quality of the user's Web experience via a mobile device depends significantly on the usability of Web sites, of browsers, and of the device itself. Although browser usability (for reading, navigating, and interacting with content) and device usability are important, this document focuses primarily on best practices for improving site usability. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We agree and we have integrated your suggested rewrite in the section on Phasing, having removed the section on usability as such. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-277 Ian Jacobs [Comment] "As an illustration of some of these factors: First, unlike the fixed Web, the mobile Web will go where you go. No longer will you have to remember to do something on the Web when you get back to your computer. You can do it immediately, within the context that made you want to use the Web in the first place." The previous paragraph needs to be adjusted. The text (which may have come initially from the Communications Team!) suggests that there are two Webs: one fixed and one mobile. That is not a message we want to communicate. The point is that we want one Web and that we want to improve mobile access to it. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have changed the term to "Mobile Web access" to clarify that it's not the mobile web but mobile access to the Web. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-283 Ian Jacobs [Comment] This point is problematic on several fronts: * "Reasonable" is not well-defined. That term may work well in some contexts (such as a patent policy, where people are used to it). I think you should avoid it in this document. Alternatively, say once up front in the delivery context section what you mean by "reasonable". * I am not sure who is responsible for carrying out this task. Is this the responsibility of someone who is producing content? It doesn't feel like it. * You say to do this for "any instance of an access." Even when there is caching? It may be that in that case I haven't accessed the resource, but I'm not sure of that, so it may be worth clarifying. * This should not be the first best practice note --- this is about content adaptation. I think it is important to start with the message: Design for one Web! Then, talk about how to improve the user experience above and beyond that. * The statement seems overly general. What about saying something a bit more specific, like "Follow published standards when determining device capabilities for the purpose of content adaptation." [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We agree that this best practice didn't fit very well with the rest of the documents, and was more a general technique than an actual best practice. As such, we have redistributed the text between some other parts of the document as well as in the Techniques. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-289 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * How do you define a "deficient" implementation? It sounds quite subjective to me. Do you mean implementations that do not conform (strictly) to standards? Otherwise how would you classify something as deficient or not? Do you mean "known bugs"? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have added a clarification of the intended meaning of deficient: "By deficient we mean non-support of mandatory features of a relevant standard or recommendation and other bugs or errors in implementation." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-297 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * If you really mean "should be enough" then say "Provide between 2-4 links at the top of a given page for navigation to important parts of the page." That seems to me to be more useful than saying "minimal navigation." Find the 80% point, say it, and then let people adapt for other cases as required (and explain to them when they might encounter those cases). * In the same spirit as my comment on the previous point, you might rephrase this as:[Navigation helps in small doses] Providing 2-4 links at the top of a page to important content in the page facilitates navigation. Many more than that hinders navigation. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have reworded the explanatory text about navigation bars, noting in particular that the navigation bar shouldn't prevent the user from seeing the core of the content. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-299 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Does "link on page" mean that it links to something on the current page, or could it also be a link that points to a different page? * I don't know what "balance" means here. I imagine it means "roughly equal to in number," but it may not be about equality. * Does "depth of navigation" mean "to other pages"? * Do you mean something like "Users tend to give up if they have to follow more than 2-3 links in order to find something." * I hoped I would understand this point better by reading the "What it means" text, but the first sentence is confusing: it uses "navigation links" and "navigate multiple links" as though they mean something different, but the phrases are very similar. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have substantially reworded the Best Practice on balance to clarify that the balance was between the number of links per pages and the number of pages the user has to download to go to his or her intended result. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-300 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * You refer to "links"; do you mean "what you get when you follow the link?" * I suggest expressing this point in terms of serving roughly equivalent representations rather than in terms of links. * You might want to citeWebarch section 3.5.1, which says "A URI owner SHOULD provide representations of the identified resource consistently and predictably". * Since this is the "One Web" point, I think it belongs at the front of the document. You might want to retitle it "One Web Principle" rather than "Thematic Consistency". * You might want to simplify to "[One Web Principle] Because you never know for sure who will be reading your content (and their device, browser, and human capabilities), you should start by designing for a broad audience, then optimize your content for targetted audiences." [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have changed the Best Practice to mention URIs instead of links, and the text now refers to the Web Architecture principle. We have not renamed it since the wording "thematic consistency" is about the expected goal not the implied principle. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-303 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * You might want to shorten this and combine it with the next point as follows:[Describe Link Targets] To help users decide whether to follow a given link, provide this information about the target of the link: * What it is, in clear language * How large it is (which may imply a time-consuming download) * The file format (which the user may know is not supported by the device). * I would note that in UAAG 1.0 we require the user agent to provide some of these services so the author doesn't have to; seecheckpoint 10.5. That helps address part of the goal of the following point about "knowing" whether the device supports a given format. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have shortened the best practice by moving it in the explanatory text that also has been clarified. We haven't combined it with link_target_format since we want to to be clear on both these points. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-314 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Delete "if they can be determined". This is an instance of a qualifier that weighs down the point you are making and should be described elsewhere. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have removed the conditional statement since it is indeed taken into account by the default delivery context. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-315 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * What do you mean by "direction"? Do you mean "down, not up"? Do you mean "Don't make people scroll horizontally? * Delete "unless secondary scrolling cannot be avoided." In general, delete "except where impossible" as I've mentioned above. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have added the following explanatory paragraph: "The page should lay out so that simple repeated scrolling in the same direction (axis) allows the user to experience all its content." We have kept the opt out clause, with explanations on cases where this might be needed (e.g. a map). | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-316 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * I do not understand how this point differs from the previous one. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We agreed and removed the second best practice on scrolling. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-321 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * This is another instance of the general point "Don't do X". I think you should regroup all of those points in one and relate them to the default delivery context. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The Best Practice was dropped, so this comment doesn't apply anymore. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-325 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please stick very close to WCAG 2.0 on this one as well. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | WCAG 2.0 is still a Working Draft, so the group has chosen to align with WCAG 1.0 which is a Recommendation. In particular, we have syncronized the text of this BP with the WCAG 1.0 guideline. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-334 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Perhaps you can be more specific about HTTP (is it "accept" headers?) since that is an explicit assumption above. * The user may wish to receive content even if its device does not directly support it (e.g., to save and use it later). Please make it clear that the user can, on demand, request content that is not supported by software on the client. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have clarified that a user should always be able to at least download items (in LINK_TARGET_FORMAT), no matter the level of support his or her device has for the said format. We have also mentioned the various ways one can determine which format is supported or not. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-402 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.2.2 Navigation Bar I am not quite certain if having a navigation bar on the top page and having the navigation links on the same line is really a best practice that I agree with. Perhaps providing a definition or example of what a navigation bar is for a mobile site would help those who disagree with this. In many cases having navigation items like home and back links of the top of the page distracts the user from viewing the content that the user is currently looking for. The user must skip through a number of links before getting the view the content, which is not desirable in some cases. In such an example I think that having the navigation bar at the bottom is preferable when the user has found the searched for content. Although, in the case that the current page is not what the user is looking for having the navigation at the top is certainly better, for the quickness of getting out of the page. Perhaps this section could use a bit more explanation. This may be a difference of interpretation depending upon the if the handsets force the user to traverse each link or can skip links that are on the same line. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have clarified that only a few links should be placed at the top of the page, leaving the rest of the navigation links to the bottom, and added a note to the effect that user should be able to see the content of the page without scrolling. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-404 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.4.5 Non Text Items The way that current i-mode handsets deal with handsets that cannot support the object tag differs from this recommendation. This may make many i-mode sites break the best practices rules. You can refer to the following link for more detail: link [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | The DoCoMo way of doing this is in the spirit of this BP i.e. the user will receive an appropriate message if his or her phone does not support the OBJECT tag, but we agree that the Best Practice was a worded a bit too restrictively. We have changed the wording of the Best Practice to: [OBJECTS_OR_SCRIPTS] Do not rely on embedded objects and/or scripts. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-407 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.4.14 Cookies Does this prevent systems that make use of Set-Cookie to determine if the phone supports cookies from getting the mobileOK mark? [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have clarified that we really meant "do not rely on cookies being available"; i.e. it is indeed fine to make use of Set-Cookie to determine if the phone support cookies. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-419 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 4 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 1.4 [link] Comment: Please point to the specification XHTML Basic [link] . [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added a reference to XHTML Basic. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-420 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 5 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 1.6 [link] Comment: This section seems to fit better at the beginning of the document. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We agreed and moved it to section 1.2 and move the other sections down correspodingly. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-424 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 9 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 2.7 [link] Comment: Please correct the line break before \"communications.\". [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have removed the spurrious line break. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-428 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 13 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: General Comment: CDFWG is in the references, but not in the text. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | This was a Dangling Reference from an earlier version which did make reference to CDF. The reference has been removed. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-430 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 15 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: General Comment: UAProf is mentioned several times in the text, but not in the references. We guess you mean UAProf profile repository [link] . [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | Thanks for pointing this out. We have included a reference to the OMA documentation on UAPROF. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-431 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 16 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: RI Location in reviewed document: Sec. 5.4.12 [link] Comment: Please refer to the tutorial on Character sets & encoding in XHTML, HTML and CSS [link] , and the QA on Setting encoding in web authoring applications [link] , instead of the \"HTTP charset\" document. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added references to these documents. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-438 Al Gilman on behalf of WAI [Comment] section 3.1 which ever content adaptation implementation model is used, the model must retain necessary accessibility information (alt, label, etc.) and convey that information to the mobile device and the user. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have added the following note to the section on content adaptation: "Whatever the adaptation model at work, the process of adaptation should not diminish accessibility." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-371 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 1.1, Purpose of the Document: The purpose should stretch beyond “…to promote more effective delivery…” and provide design guidelines applicable to the usability and accessibility of the mobile Web or, at least, specifics of interacting with mobile Web sites. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We agree and have changed the text to read "to improve the user experience of the Web on mobile devices." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-380 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 2.7, Advantages: “Connected” should be added to the popularity reasons. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added that aspect to the list of advantages. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-383 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 5.1.4, Testing: Update the recommendation to “…devices and provided specific software versions…”. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have added the suggested mention of software versions. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-386 Bruno von Niman (ANEC W3C) on behalf of ANEC [Comment] Chapter 5.2.4.1, What it means: Connectivity and download speed issues should be mentioned. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We've added a note to the sentence "irrespective of differences in presentation capabilities": "and access mechanism." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-342 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] This Best Practice should require that content not rely on scripting, unless the delivery context is known to support them. Some mobile browsers allow the user to turn off javascript (handy where you are trying to save battery). It should also lean away from using script unless necessary - it is one of the more battery-intensive ways to do most things. It should also cross-reference requirements on page size, and a best practice on page size vs latency (see Opera's comment on "missing points") cheers Chaals [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have updated the document to clarify that content should not rely on scripting, and avoid using scripting as much as possible due to battery considerations. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-356 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] 1. Meaning The text does not make it clear whether the characteristics are minimum specifications, or actual specifications that should be assumed. For example should a developer assume in the absence of other information that the width of a device is 120 px, or that there may be no more than 120 px width available. [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have qualified the screen width as being a minimum. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-410 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] [This is a comment on Mobile Best Practices, but cc'ed to WCAG as a comment for them on text the are currently using] The wording "Ensure that perceivable structures within the content can be programatically determined", copied verbatim from the WCAG working draft, has proven to be very difficult to understand for the majority of the developers I have ased to comment on this draft (which is only a couple of dozen). Perhaps something more straightforward, like "use markup, properly" is simpler for a title, with the current title moved into the "what it means" session as a couple of sentences. cheers chaals [Commentor reply] no reply from commenter [Working Group decision] | We have changed the wording to: "Use features of the markup language to indicate logical document structure." | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-411 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] Testing for the absence of tabindex, and the absence of complex layouts (absolute positioning, etc) should also be enough. cheers Chaals [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have reworded the "how to test" section accordingly. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-412 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] Another test for this is to see if there is rendered content that is not inside a table - if there is none, it is quite likely that tables are being used for layout. (Even more so if there is no caption or summary element on the outermost table). cheers Chaals [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have added a test along these lines in the "what to test" section. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-413 Charles McCathieNevile on behalf of Opera Software [Comment] Rather than the negative "Do not take a least common denominator approach", this could be better phrased as "... to maximise usability" or something similar. It needs to be clear that while thispractise does authorise sending enhanced content to users who are clearly able to make use of it, it does not authorise breaking the "one web" principle and simply ignoring users (provided they have at least a "baseline-capable" device). cheers Chaals [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have changed the wording to read: "[CAPABILITIES] Exploit device capabilities to provide an enhanced user experience.". | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-258 Ian Jacobs [Comment] Please start early with the "One Web" message, for example by adding something like this to the end of the preceding sentence: "An important Web design principle (discussed, for example, insection 4.3of "Architecture of the World Wide Web") is to design content that is flexible enough to enable a valuable user experience for a variety of devices. This document explains how to design for "one Web" while also optimizing for the mobile experience." [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have elevated THEMATIC CONSISTENCY to the most prominent in the document and hence have given it the precedence it deserves. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-259 Ian Jacobs [Comment] What does "in context" mean? [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have removed the incriminated sentence. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-260 Ian Jacobs [Comment] I suggest merging the previous two paragraphs; I otherwise was unsure about the mobileOK trustmark in the paragraph where it was introduced. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | The paragraph boundary was indeed unnecessary and we have merged the two paragraphs accordingly. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
28bc750a_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Working_Group_decision | [Commentor] LC-263 Ian Jacobs [Comment] The first reference to "phase of work" is confusing. Does it mean "phase of this WG?" or "phase of this document"? Please clarify. It may be described in [Scope], but I think you need to provide a short summary of what "phasing" means or of what the phases are. [Commentor reply] yes [Working Group decision] | We have expanded the consideration on phasing and have added a mention of the expected longevity of the document. | [] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Working Group decision | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.