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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-291 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * In my opinion, unless you adopt something more along the lines of what is stated below (a kind of "exception" provision for error conditions) then I think you should delete this one, which, as stated, seems to me to amount to "Do useful things." Again, the note has a very different impact if you are talking about when it's ok to not follow _other_ good practices. [Working Group decision] We are writing for Web people who may not have realised that there is even more variation in browsers on mobile than there is on the desktop. We do indeed talk about when it is ok not to follow other good practices. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-293 Ian Jacobs [Comment] I realize that you have chosen to write the good practice notes in the imperative voice. I also realize that more information is provided below. However, I think the reader might take away a lot more if the points included more rationale. Any many people (including myself initially) may simply look at the checklist and not take time to read the entire document. For instance: "Short URIs require less effort to type, are less prone to errors when typing them, and are easier to remember." In light of my previous comment about short labels for the statements, you might end up with: [Short URIs Are Friendly] Short URIs require less effort to type, are less prone to errors when typing them, and are easier to remember. This is not much longer than what you have and I think the rationale provided (likely imperfect as proposed) makes the statements much more meaningful. [Working Group decision] Generally speaking, we think the imperative voice better convey our message across. For the specific best practice on short URIs, we have added a explanatory words and examples, but have kept the best practice mostly as is. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-302 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Access key support on traditional desktop devices is problematic at best. I do not know about the current state of support from the WCAG WG for access keys (looking in the WCAG 2.0 techniques, I find only a placeholder). Is access key support on mobile devices expected to be more interoperable? [Working Group decision] Yes, access key support on mobile devices is interoperable among mobile devices and with some desktop implementations. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-304 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * I am not sure what you mean by this checkpoint. Through Internet protocols I believe two parties can agree on whether a client supports a particular format available on the server. So do you mean that after such a negotiation, in (adapted) content you serve, you don't have to provide information about the format? I don't think you mean that, in particular because I think that would imply lots of communication about all the links in a document to determine the format of identified resources. * Other than through Internet protocols dynamically, I don't know how you can "know the device supports" a given format unless you are designing in a very closed environment, and I thought that the purpose of these guidelines was to explain how to design effectively in anopenenvironment. * Perhaps you can shorten this, therefore, to something like "To help users reduce the cost of unnecessary downloads, for pieces of content in formats that are not part of the default delivery context, identify the format in links." [Working Group decision] Most content adaptation systems rely on a database of known devices, with information on which format the device support. If you use such a system, you can annotated only the links you know may not be supported; if you don't, you fallback on the default delivery context, which tells you that only XHTML, JPG and GIF are supported formats (we have amended the text to clarify this). [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-305 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * I have a similar concern as above about "unless you know." I think that some of these checkpoints make more sense at certain points in a pipeline than at others. For instance, I as a human author probably don't know whether a particular user agent supports this or that. On the other hand, a piece of software that is actively involved in some protocol negotiation and that is doing content adaptation may very well have that information available. But the points are written for multiple audiences and therefore may be confusing. * What is "an available geometric shape"? I think you mean that the format supports the shape. [Working Group decision] The document is about delivered content. The inference for a content author is that if they specify an image map, then under certain circumstances this will not work so they should in addition consider an alternative linear arrangement of links. We have shortened the best practice to: "Do not use image maps unless you know the target client supports them effectively." and explained "effectively" in the text with the remainder of the BP as it is now put. We have also included a note to the effect that Image Maps on the Mobile Web are a bad idea. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-307 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * In developing UAAG 1.0, which addresses these topics, we distinguished two concerns (1) the (visual or other sensory) disorientation caused by suddenly opening windows and (2) the change in focus. * I urge you to recast these in terms of thecheckpoints of Guideline 5of the UAAG 1.0 Recommendation. I am happy to discuss them further with you to help answer any questions. * In particular, an important point is that it's ok to do these things when the user says it's ok. * For the point about "unless you have informed the user", that may be locking up the barn after the horse has been stolen. I think it's more important to provide an alternative. [Working Group decision] We don't mean to be prescriptive about providing a means of helping the user choose, we do mean that there must be a way of telling the user that the page will refresh and of stopping refresh once it has started. Any other consideration is more to do with User Agents, which is out of scope for this document. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-308 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please delete this point. I believe the purpose of this entire document is to explain to the reader what it means for content to be suitable for use in a mobile context. Do you mean "suitable" in the sense of "not offensive"? [I don't think you do; just checking.] [Working Group decision] As explained in the text, we simply mean that you're rarely interested in very detailed and long texts when using the web on a mobile devices, but that you would be generally speaking looking for specific information: "Users in a mobile context are often looking for specific pieces of information, rather than browsing. Content providers should consider the likely context of use of information and, while providing the option to access all information, should offer appropriate information first." [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-309 Ian Jacobs [Comment] I believe that the above checkpoint no longer exists in WCAG 2.0. I have not followed that debate recently, but I believe that it is so contentious as written (and not verifiable in any obvious way in that formulation) that you will regret having included it. I recommend talking to the WCAG WG about the evolution of their thinking in this area. [Working Group decision] The point is less to be measurable and more to provide best practice guidance. We are saying in the explanation below that a discursive style is usually less appropriate in the mobile context. It's an important point and we have kept it. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-311 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * How are you defining "what the user has requested?" Does that mean "Implement HTTP GET"? [Working Group decision] No, as we explain in the text below. 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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-313 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * I think the point of this document is to define what "usable" means. Therefore, I don't think you should have a checkpoint that says divide pages into usable pieces. Tell us instead what makes a piece usable. [Working Group decision] We believe the explanation under the best practice makes it clear what we mean by usable size. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-319 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * The first sentence of the second point here can be generalized to be "don't do things that the device can't handle." Because I don't think that is known in all cases, I suggest you delete the first sentence. Perhaps rephrase the point in terms of the default delivery context: "Very large or high-resolution graphics are unlikely to achieve their desired goal when rendered on devices with small screens. Avoid them unless there is no other way to provide the information in question." * In some cases, people may wish to download images for viewing on another device (e.g., I store something on my phone then view it on my desktop computer). You may wish to remind the author of that scenario. [Working Group decision] We keep this best practice as it is a classical problem in mobile web design and want to insist on this type of practical issue. On the 2nd point, we've included discussion on downloading items (under link_target_format). [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-322 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please stick very close to WCAG 2.0 on this one as well (I think it is 1.4.3). [Working Group decision] We stick close the WCAG 1.0 - the current W3C Recommendation. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-330 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please delete "unless the device is known not to support them" in favor of a general section on handling this sort of thing (as described above). [Working Group decision] Given that style sheets are part of the default delivery context, this get out clause is needed when a site adapts its content for a device that doesn't support style sheets. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-331 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * This also comes from WCAG, but I no longer see it in WCAG 2.0. Have you asked them why it was deleted? (I don't see it in the23 Nov 2005 draft) [Working Group decision] It may have been a WCAG point but the mobile interpretation is that some devices don't do style sheets. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-333 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Delete this point and add to the list of things to "keep short": markup. [Working Group decision] We think these are separate concern that deserve separate contexts. While we may have chosen to organize the best practices in the way you suggest, we haven't found enough benefits behind your proposed re-organization to work on a major re-organization as you suggest. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-335 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Please delete "Where possible" * I suggest merging these two into a single point about following standard protocols for content type negotiation. [Working Group decision] The point is that: * simple standard content negotiation works poorly in the mobile space. * It may not be possible to do it if you're not using content adaptation. * Respect the markup format the client is asking for. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-336 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * "to a minimum" is not well-defined. * Add this to the list of things to keep short. [Working Group decision] We prefer to have well-focused practical best practices rather than generic lists of items that fit under a same principle. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-340 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Delete "appropriately" (twice) * By "explicitly" do you mean "through markup language features" (such as the "for" attribute in HTML)? * Please be more explicit about what appropriate positioning is rather than make this general statements. Is "before" better than "after" in reading order? [Working Group decision] We have removed the duplication of "appropriately". We have split the best practices in two to separate the concerns of labeling and positioning, but the proper positioning of labels with forms controls depends too heavily on the context to be specified more precisely. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-346 Ville Karinen [Comment] Hello all, i remember there was some discussion whether MWBP promotes One Web or not, but in any case, i guess one goal of the *document* is to explain different kind of approaches or strategies how Web can be served for/accessed via mobile device. "The primary goal is to improve the user experience of the Web when accessed from such devices." However, it seems that the document is concentrating mainly on authoring process. As we can change the existing Web very slowly, it would be informative for non-mobile Web experts to illustrate already existing Web to Mobile adaptation processes, which are based on proxy based conversion. These conversion proxies provide the most widest Web to Mobile resource today. Here are some examples which kind of proxies i mean: WEB TO MOBILE Google's quite new HTML -> XHTML MP converter: MWBP document (WAI) conversion as an example. This converter can handle even forms. (Opera Software MIDP browser based on proxy adaptation. This combination enhances site and browser usability) HTML-> WML conversion (handles forms also) Maybe it should explained more clearly, why WAI guidelines - for example - do not cater mobile devices enough. In my opinion, different kind of Web to Mobile proxies should be studied in the future working groups - especially with content conforming relevant (and existing) WAI guidelines. It is said, that the mobile handset can be the only Web device for many users in the third world. That is why it is important to note, that conversion proxies might be someties the only way to get information from the Web. Kind Regards, Mr. Ville Karinen Student (Agr. & For.) [Working Group decision] As stated in the "Classes of products" section [2], we're only dealing with "content as it gets delivered to a Web user agent". The way it is authored, adapted or proxied along the delivery chain is thus out of scope for our document, although we briefly explain where content adaptation fits in there [3]. Furthermore, a W3C Technical Report would not be the right place to present vendor-specific solutions for content adaptation. Nevertheless, the Techniques the Working Group has started to work on will present a set of technical advices regarding how to put the best practices in application; as these techniques will be open for contributions, maybe could you then suggest something along the lines of your email message? In the meantime, is there a way to rephrase your comment in a way that would fit in the scope of our best practices? Thank you very much for the time you took to review and comment on the document. Dom 1. link 2. link 3. link [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-352 Werner Egipsy Souza (Jataayu Software) on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] _5.3.1 URLs of Site Entry Points_ Here, if URLs for a menu system running into more than 5 pages can follow a URL syntax containing page numbers such as: link then it becomes easy for the user to navigate between pages, just by changing the page number on the URL, through the bookmark. Of course, if the browsing application itself could provide a page browser using this syntax, the user\'s task of navigating through pages would be much easier [Working Group decision] The Best Practice is about site entry points, to which this technique doesn't really apply. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-353 Werner Egipsy Souza (Jataayu Software) on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] _5.3 Navigation and Links _All the URLs for each page, must be listed in the options(or right click) menu, so that if a user he/she wants to go to a URL on the page, he/she just has to scroll through the options(or right click) menu to reach the required URL. then it becomes easy for the user to navigate between pages, just by changing the page number on the URL, through the bookmark. Of course, if the browsing application itself could provide a page browser using this syntax, the user\'s task of navigating through pages would be much easier [Working Group decision] This is a user agent issue and so out of scope. We do recommend use of access keys which can achieve the same goal of easing navigation. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-351 Werner Egipsy Souza (Jataayu Software) on behalf of Jataayu Software [Comment] _5.3.7 Link Target Identification _The cost of following a link,as in the case of articles, should be identified in the number of pages which are required by the article, as is done by the BBC Wap page. Hence we get a link at the bottom of the first page of the article, which says \"_Continued Page 2/4_\". The user is then able to choose whether he/she wants to read a 4 page article, or whether he/she should look for another article. [Working Group decision] We think this suggestion would be a good fit for a technique related to this best practice; we welcome techniques contributions in our wiki at: link [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-398 Zev Blut [Comment] 1.4 Default Delivery Context There is an entry for screen width, but not height. I think that there should be some value for a default screen height. [Working Group decision] We decided not to include the screen height because: * research showed that even being able to view only a few lines (4) was sufficient for a reasonable user experience * we didn't want to fix the aspect ratio [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-399 Zev Blut [Comment] 2.2 Input Discusses the potential lack of back button support, but in section 1.4 the default device supports XHTML- Basic. Is it not reasonable that if the default is assuming XHTML-Basic then the target default handsets have back buttons? [Working Group decision] The "back button" is not mandated by any of the specifications that defines the default delivery context, and in particular, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that any device supporting XHTML-basic would feature a back button. As such, we have kept our text regarding the back button as is. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-401 Zev Blut [Comment] What does the group consider a proper range for short URLs? [Working Group decision] No specific values have been defined for lengths of URLs because it was felt that specifying precise value might in practice prove too restrictive This BP should be interpreted as meaning if you have the choice between link http://example.com as the access point for your site you should choose the shorter one, which we have tried to clarify through additional examples. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-403 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.3.4 Navigation Bars etc. This is a good idea, but it makes me wonder how possible the one web vision becomes. If one wants to create a page that can provide an optimal display, the developer would need to do quite some work or use a powerful platform. I fear that some developers may give up trying to get the mobileOK mark if it becomes too difficult. [Working Group decision] This is a WCAG checkpoint and a fairly common usablity rule. Put the important stuff first. Note that the Best Practices and the mobileOK trustmark, while related, are different and it is not defined yet which best practice will be included in the definition of the trustmark. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-405 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.4.6 Image Size [IMAGES_SPECIFY_SIZE] Are there actual examples where not setting the width and height of an image actually hurts the display of the image by the browser? I am not so sure how necessary this is, especially when considering that providing this information increases the size of the page. [Working Group decision] We have clarified that specifying the intrinsic dimensions of an image allows that the browser doesn't have to re-flow the page in the course of displaying it (re-flowing creates usability problems due to changes of focus, and also may have a bad CPU/battery impact). [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-406 Zev Blut [Comment] 5.4.13 Error Messages This is also a great idea, but some handsets ignore the developer’s custom HTTP 5xx response and shows a built in error message to the user. [Working Group decision] Good point but clearly the content author can't do anything about this User Agent deficiency [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-416 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Please say about the participants in the mobile value chain s.t. like "these participants are working with multiple languages ...". [Working Group decision] We have removed the section on participants in the mobile value chain altogether since it was not necessary to the comprehension of the document. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-417 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 2 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 1.3 [link] Comment: On scope of MWBP 1.0: Please give internationalization as another example of general good practice which have a specific mobile interpretation. [Working Group decision] Our position on this is that if we reference other work we do so because of a specific mobile interpretation. As far as we are aware we do not make reference to any internationalisation as we feel that internationalization recommendations "are general to all forms of Web access". Please come back to us if we are mistaken. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-418 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 3 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 1.3.2 [link] Comment: On aspects of usability: Please mention that proper localization is part of localizability, e.g. in the case of site usability, device usability or browser usability. [Working Group decision] We do not think that this has a specific mobile interpretation; the section on usability has been removed in any case. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-423 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 8 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 2.4 [link] Comment: Travel related information might not be useful in a mobile context, since there might be no resource for translating. Please mention the need to make it explicit in the content that such resources are missing. [Working Group decision] Non availability of resources in the language of your choice is not a mobile specific issue. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-425 on behalf of I18N WG [Comment] Comment from the i18n review of: link Comment 10 At link Editorial/substantive: E Owner: FS Location in reviewed document: Sec. 2.7 [link] Comment: Your mention the importance of mobile devices for developing countries. Esp. for these countries, internationalization and localization issues are crucial (e.g. support of a font for the script). such requirements should be made explicit in this document. [Working Group decision] We don't think this has a specific mobile interpetation. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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? [Working Group decision] Yes, it is intended as the document is non normative. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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? [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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" [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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.\" [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). [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. " [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] We have removed that Best Practice, since it didn't have a mobile-specific aspect. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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). [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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). [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] We refer only to ratified documents and not to works in progress. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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). [Working Group decision] We have removed the section on usability. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] This is background overview section and is not intended to be an exhaustive explanation. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] Please suggest a rewrite or specifics if you think this is especially problematic. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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). [Working Group decision] It is the document convention to have introductory text following major headings. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] This BP has been removed. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] We refer only to ratified recommendations. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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." [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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? [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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). [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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? [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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? [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-286 Ian Jacobs [Comment] Ah, that last sentence is already more informative in my opinion. [Working Group decision] Capabilities has been removed [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-310 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * How does this apply to prefetching? [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] We have linked CENTRAL_MEANING and CLARITY since they both address the same range of topics. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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.) [Working Group decision] We reference WCAG 1.0 because this is the current W3C Recommendation. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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." [Working Group decision] The text already reads: "Many mobile clients do not support frames. In addition, frames are recognized as being generally problematic." [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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? [Working Group decision] As already noted, we don't think the benefits of grouping outweighs the costs. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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." [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." [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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." [Working Group decision] The text already reads: "Avoiding pixel and absolute measures allows the browser to adapt content to fit the display." [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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). [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." [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [Commentor] LC-338 Ian Jacobs [Comment] * Delete "where possible" [Working Group decision] As noted above, this leeway is intended given the document focus on guidance rather than mandated rules. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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? [Working Group decision] We say that this is relevant when the device does not respect the author's intentions. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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.\" [Working Group decision] We have added the additional tests to execute in the "what to test" section. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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...\'.) [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] We agreed with this additional principle and generalized it in the Best Practice "EXTERNAL_RESOURCES". [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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." [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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." [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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? [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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). [Working Group decision] We have clarified the default delivery context, and now it only allows external style sheet as required by XHTML Basic. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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 [Working Group decision] We agreed with this and moved this Best Practice as a technique. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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 [Working Group decision] The group agreed and decided to drop this as a Best Practice. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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 [Working Group decision] We have noted that borders and margins may sometimes usefully be specified in pixels. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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 [Working Group decision] We have clarified that only images with an intrinsic size should have their dimensions specified in the markup. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [Working Group decision] The group agreed this Best Practice wasn't very relevant and decided to remove it. [Commentor reply] | no reply from commenter | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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." [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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"? [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." [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | http://www.w3.org/2006/04/mwbp-doc | 27/1438042989826.86_20150728002309-00056-ip-10-236-191-2_836737130_0.json |
2ed08599_ices_1_0_dated_January_13_2006__Commentor_reply | [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. [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. [Commentor reply] | yes | [
[
"n",
"o",
" ",
"r",
"e",
"p",
"l",
"y",
" ",
"f",
"r",
"o",
"m",
" ",
"c",
"o",
"m",
"m",
"e",
"n",
"t",
"e",
"r"
],
[
"y",
"e",
"s"
]
] | Disposition of Last Call comments for the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 dated January 13 2006 | Commentor reply | 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.