>
> Some clarification about the points I wanted to make:
> 1. I believe it's important that URIs can be accessed with any
> browsing device. No /k, /i or even .mobi variants, just the same URI
> for all user agents - that's true device independence. So far, I
> haven't seen very much discussion about this point.
Why? Why is this so important? You have not argued for it, as far as
I recollect... Saying a URI should be device independent is fine if
all devices have unlimited capabilities. Otherwise it is like arguing
that a motorway should be device independent - then trying to ride a
bicycle in the fast lane...)
If the IA is different for each device, the content will be different
- and if the content is different, it should be on a different URI.
And - crucially - screen size IS a relevant factor when deciding IA.
Let's say we have a text file 4meg in size on a URI. How can we
make that accessible on that URI to a handset with a maximum page
size of 5k? Why should we even try? If we have to cut it up into 40
small pages with navi, then we are going to have to use a different
URI - in part at least.
The web "should" be searchable and the URI should relate to content.
> 2. If you use XHTML for structure, CSS for layout, most mobile
> browsers know what to do with your page.
If it is 400k? Maybe the browser does - but the person trying to
BROWSE may not handle it well.
> You can add some basic
> handheld CSS rules to make things prettier, but the most important
> thing is that the content can be *accessed* with both classic and
> mobile browsers.
Accessed by the browser - but NOT necessarily "accessed by the
person". The Guardian site is accessible by phone browser - it is
just a pain to read
>
> So, I'd like to see more of this kind of stuff on the Japanese web.
I think it is a fundamental mistake. Same URI, same content, fine.
But device capability IS one legitimate feature in deciding the IA of
a site and that will affect content. Since having different content
at the same URI (when accessed by devices of different capability) is
bad - for pragmatic reasons (Google, etc) if for no other (although I
think there are sound reasons relating to "content identity) - the
URI has to change.
Any fool can make a site that delivers content wrapped for different
handsets, or a desktop, from the same URI. I am sure that many sites
that are /i or /j or /e all pull in the same engine and just pump it
out of a different URI because users expect it.
But as soon as you have to start sending DIFFERENT content - and
device capability affects content - you should change the URI.
Nick
Received on Thu Dec 8 16:09:01 2005