Edit comment LC-1720 for Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-1726 Next: LC-1697

Comment LC-1720
Commenter: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>

Resolution status:

As I understand it, the tests suggest that authors use a separate version
for desktop and for mobiles. I can understand that doing so can be
desireable today for the following reasons:

1. Users have to pay per byte for browsing on the mobile.
2. The connection speed on mobiles is slow.
3. Many mobile browsers have bad support for CSS.

On the longer term, (1) should be addressed by providers offering monthly
fees; (2) should be addressed by improving mobile networks, and (3) by
improving the implementations. (2) and (3) are already happening, and I
wouldn't be surprised if (1) happened soon. When these have been
addressed, there is little reason for authors to provide separate versions
for mobiles and for desktop, as opposed to using one version that works
for both.

The tests warn for things that are not supported on some mobile devices,
such as scripting, even though it is possible to provide fallback content
for UAs without scripting and including scripts doesn't harm UAs that
don't support it. I would suggest not warning for things that don't harm
mobile browsers and could benefit other UAs, in the interest of not
putting unnecessary strain on authors.
(space separated ids)
(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Developed and maintained by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org).
$Id: 1720.html,v 1.1 2017/08/11 06:43:41 dom Exp $
Please send bug reports and request for enhancements to w3t-sys.org