Edit comment LC-1698 for Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group

Previous: LC-1697 Next: LC-1699

Comment LC-1698: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
> It is not a test for browsers, user agents or mobile devices,
> and is not intended to imply anything about the way these should
> behave.

In practice, the draft is implying expectations about UA behavior.

> Content passing the tests demonstrates that the content provider
> has
> taken basic steps to provide a functional experience for mobile
> users.

I don't like the implication that pointy-haired managers are likely
to take statements like this and bother their teams about hunting a
badge of approval instead of testing that their sites work with
browsers that run on mobile devices and are capable of browsing the
real World Wide Web.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: It doesn't actually prescribe tests or expectations on user agents of course, so I'm not worried that anyone will get too far when looking for mobileOK user agent requirements. But you are saying that by defining what a minimal mobile user agent looks like, a profile which is safe to assume, and then what content for that minimal profile is like, you in turn imply what it's safe to assume a device needs to support -- and possibly disincentivize manufacturers from creating more capable devices. For example, by declaring that sites should be able to deliver UTF-8 content foremost, you maybe send a message that it's not as important to support other encodings. That could be so, though it's probably not true that saying sites should only assume a display 120px wide would ever discourage someone from making a phone with a bigger screen. It's necessary to pick some baseline. We've tried to make it clear throughout that there are no tests on user agents here and that the tests merely determine whether you seem to be able to accommodate a really minimal phone when you see one. Too true. We create the badge as an incentive for following the guidelines, to reward adoption. That's OK -- the problem comes when passing the tests requires doing something actually harmful in the end. I hope this doesn't happen. It's for this reason that we've been a little more inclined to create warnings rather than failures. If practice shows that some of the tests are causing this problem, well, they will be fixed. For what it's worth, the labeling part of the specification will come later. For now, there is no real badge.; Resolution: Proposed Resolution: 1. In practice, the draft is implying expectations about UA behavior. In order to test Web sites some UA behaviour must be exhibited, there is no implication that ALL UAs should exhibit this behavor. 2. I don't like the implication that pointy-haired managers are likely to take statements like this and bother their teams about hunting a badge of approval instead of testing that their sites work with browsers that run on mobile devices and are capable of browsing the real World Wide Web. That is a concern. We make it clear that enhanced experience should be made available and that all experiences should be tested on real phones. Neither of those considerations devalues the need for a test for suitability for a very basic device.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)