Update: Be sure to read the comments for this one. One-web means at least two different things, and the official definition is something I agree with wholeheartedly, and is not what we're talking about in this post.
On the way to the best ice cream place on the planet, a buddy of mine asks what other wonderful things they make but for ice cream in waffle cones. While listing them out, phospates come up; he's never heard of them, so I try to explain, and during it mention the CCR song.
Easiest thing in the world, I just pop "Green River" into the Google idle screen search, and pretty quick up comes a YouTube video of it. Click through, and after a possibly unnecessary warning about data usage, we're watching it. It's so easy that after this, while I keep driving, my friend searches out a new favorite Strokes video, and so on.
A one-web solution (using the existing, desktop web solutions) won't work like this. As a designer, I spend most of my time focusing on the part where they cleverly got rid of all the extra junk on the side of the screen, and so on. The video is right there on the first screen. This is better than most desktop sites anymore. I can just load the page and wait for the video to run, without scrolling.
But the secretly more key part is that the video actually ran. I can load pretty much any web page, but very rarely all components of the page. I use the NWS for my weather data, but none of the looping radar images will load on my phone. Which is too bad.
I just do not see a day every phone (or maybe any phone) can run full Flash and Active-X plugins and the latest, I dunno,... Adobe AIR and, well, every silly thing that might be needed, in its latest version. My computer has to load a new version of some plugin or other every other week.
Mobiles are about immediate access, and convenience, and I feel are going to keep being treated like appliances. By which I mean not so much the part where they have a single key task, but that they are so easy to use they become "invisible," or assumed to be always present and always available.
Devices that are always available such that they are an invisible extension of your daily tasks do not ask you to install updates and new plugins to view a fun video on the way to get ice cream.
Hi Steven,
I’m the W3C staff contact for the Mobile Web Best Practices working group that published the Mobile Web Best Practices document you’re referring to.
I can’t agree more on the need to create a focused user experience, especially on mobile devices, but I don’t quite understand the relationship with One Web here. I can’t help thinking that you’re using One Web as a synonym for one-content-fits-all, or as advice that the regular flow of adaptation is from desktop to mobile because existing content is on desktop.
One Web carries the notion that a given Web address should yield thematically consistent representations on each and every device. It is neutral on the number of variations one may need, and does not give priority to any world. [This is what I tried to explain at the end of my second post on One Web: http://www.w3.org/blog/MWITeam/2009/03/23/one_web_for_all_part_2].
I agree with you that the design that needs to be adapted in your example is the desktop one, not the mobile one, and I hope as well that the desktop world will benefit from such mobile user experiences in the end.
In short, I have the feeling that we share the exact same view. Is the One Web section of the Mobile Web Best Practices document totally unclear, or am I missing something?
I am indeed referring to “one-web” as the notion of one presentation design for all cases.
This is the shorthand we always use, and is indeed the sense I have tended to get from the W3C documentation (but I will go back this morning and read some of your commentary again). But much more importantly, it is due to the manner in which much content, and specifically many mobile browsers, are pursuing bringing the internet into mobile devices. Not just that they /can/ display the desktop web, but that they /should/.
There is, as I see it, a supposition that the desktop is the “full” web, and anything else falls short of it. All your phrasing about adaptation and consistency without priority is spot on, and I’d agree entirely with this comment at least.
FWIW I think that we are all in violent agreement here. The question on my mind is if “One Web” seems to have such widely differing interpretations then using as a description of anything is useless, irrespective of the fact that it’s defined in the Mobile Web Best Practice document (don’t get me wrong, I’m the editor if that doc and would love for the definition there to be the authoritative one).
Having drummed on about this a while ago (http://mobiforge.com/blog/low-fat-or-full-fat-its-still-one-web) perhaps we can come up with a term that means what One Web is supposed to, namely “links should work across device types”.
Jo
No matter how much I read, I still miss stuff. I’d have written a follow on to this post about these discussions if Jo’s linked article (which I naturally missed originally) didn’t already cover it very well. I’ll go into the admin panel and see if I can make that all these real link here in a minute to make them easier to follow. Everyone go read that now.
Yes, /we/ all agree with each other. Many others I’ve encountered indeed do not. Based on some of my work with browser makers, indeed they believe that there should be one web to rule them all. Personally I am increasingly embracing my own interpretation of “progressive enhancement” where objects/modules and rules are used to make an arbitrary number of display variants in a reasonably manageable manner. Each device/browser combo should get something that meets the needs of the users of such a device, so they can consume the content or complete the task. It’s about that core information, and the user, not the legacy design. Nothing should be that precious.
I’ve also been to too many conferences where the bulk of the attendeed think discussion of semantics and terminology is a waste. I agree, otoh, that it’s a key to comprehension and spreading the word. And this is why. I have no idea what should or could replace it, but the “one” part seems troublesome, and anyway why not a new term to encompass the right thinking… Hmm…
So if I get this right, we are talking about: Same content, different design, when it comes to the “one web” on multiple platforms? If so, then I totally agree. But should all the same content be available on all different platforms or should only the core content be available on the different platforms? I would really like to know what you think of this. I’m trying to write my thesis on “what is the future of the mobile web user experience”. And this is, I think, key in the whole discussion on the “one web”.
Evert, my answer immediately got too long. And anyway, it started to diverge into a process discussion, so I made a new post. Click this link or just go to the next newest one:
http://www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/blog/2009/04/14/what-is-contextually-appropriate-content/
Francois says One Web is neutral. Steven feels legacy design should not be precious. If content is rendered differently, constantly on multiple platforms and it is semi-customized per user… why isn’t it called Your Web or something?
What’s up guys,
Just want to say at Mobify we agree completely with Francois Daoust’s point about one address, different representations… That’s the way to move forward. One Web has nothing to do with 1024×768-optimized HTML/CSS
Igor
I’ll try to write a longer reply to this tomorrow, too tired right now… the idea I was pushing (and clearly did not get across clearly enough) is that of having One Web of unified data, with many different representations. I talked about various techniques for server- and client-side adaptation, and I talked about having One Web that both machines and people could get meaning out of… meaning appropriate to the needs of each.
I have had the sorry experience more than once in the past of trying to maintain multiple sets of the same data for different purposes, and Murphy’s Law has always kicked in somehow in the end. That has made me very sensitive to the need for a unified data store adjusting it’s representation on demand to different client needs.
I definitely did not mean to come across as saying we should be “using the existing, desktop web solutions”, as mobile devices are clearly different environments than desktop devices. I think Igor is right when he says: “One Web has nothing to do with 1024×768-optimized HTML/CSS”, I agree with Francois when he says: “a given Web address should yield thematically consistent representations on each and every device”, and I like the simple truth expressed by Jo when he says: “links should work across device types”.
jeffs
First, I’d hate to see a longer comment
I think based on the hallway conversation, and some of these others above, I get it. And would love it, and do indeed support it. Even the un-named weather website I talked about this afternoon used this. The mobile update allowed abandoning old, now mobile-specific software, and therefore information sources. Now all digital front ends get the same data, at the same time, etc.
We had some other discussions of this at dinner (drinks, whatever) at Tellers, and one definition of One Web I liked was “all my links work.” Of course, its’ pretty un-tactical, so developers who need to know what to code, and marketing guys who need to know who to throw money at need guidance as to how to get there.
Even if we agree on the integrity of information (or information sources) that leaves a lot of room for discussion still.
When I get some time, I’ll make a new blog post (and probably a page on the D4M wiki) about this. Even though we all seem to be understanding the definitions, and best practices, there are a couple of points still to work on (I talked about this in hallways and restaurants at the conference, so for some of you this is repetitive):
1) It’s still not totally clear what it means. During the very last talk, it took Judy Breck and Barbara Ballard a while to coordinate their language enough to understand that manners of understanding information and the page level interface are not the same, so it’s possible to have the same information with a different design for different devices.
2) Sometimes, different information should be presented on each device. Not usually less (of a subset of larger devices) for smaller devices, and never by /modifying/ information available in other device classes, but different. So far, this is where I make a lot of my money, in divining what that information should be; hard to imagine automated systems to do this.
3) Philosophy of design is one thing, but especially in an environment where not everyone hires a designer and/or has time to ponder it, technical implementation resources need tactical details on /how/ to implement systems like this. Even if just some guidelines, bullet lists or examples.
4) I know organizations and people who DO think that desktop should be on your mobile. As an example, one of the two mobile browers I have worked on expressly had as design constraints (among others) “functionas existing desktop web browsers” and “”allow users to do everything on their mobile phone they can do with a desktop browser.” While you could interpret these maybe as being OneWeb compliant, having worked with these guys, they do indeed mean “put the desktop web on the mobile.” This more than anything worries me a bit as the one group with real power to mess with useful, usable web presentation are the browser makers.
Hi All,
Great discussion. I personally like the effects of mobile browsing of the web. I use ‘header modification’ in FireFox so all I get is the mobile version of a website. For me, it just cuts the crap out that I didn’t want in the first place. Much of the “desktop internet” is now bloat and advertising anyway. I like what a mobile enabled website offers.
Mobile web designers have to be selective of what their content will be. And for me, the “one web” concept is something that will allow individuals, small and medium size businesses to provide mobile content as well as the “desktop” version. Not everyone can afford to maintain 2+ websites dedicated to each type of user’s browser coming to them.
As for this statement:
“I just do not see a day every phone (or maybe any phone) can run full Flash and Active-X plugins and the latest, I dunno,… Adobe AIR and, well, every silly thing that might be needed, in its latest version.”
…you probably aren’t old enough to remember the horrors of MSDOS and what we thought was state of the art then. I can’t say when, but I can guarantee that mobile devices will eventually do most (if not all) of what we consider normal for ‘desktops’ now. The only real limitation is the physical size of the screen and it’s input mechanism. Increase computational power will come in time.
I am older than y’all think. I soldered on computers. And chose non MS-DOSs when I built my 286. I base my assertion that you won’t have every plugin on every platform on:
1) The assumption that for a while at least we’ll have close mobile OSs, and operator restrictions. Good luck adding stuff.
2) My mac doesn’t run some smartboard software. Or Visio, or… lots of other little things. And people have to go write their own video drivers for Linux still…
3) … fragmentation in mobile might get better (less) but is still going to add a half dozen or so OSs to the whole 3ish on the desktop that people seem to not be willing to fully support now, and…
4) …mobile in the sense of phones is just one of the non-desktop screens. Internet connect cars, vehicle-mounted nav systems, TVs, refrigerators, etc. How many additional OSs. How many input, screen and context variants for all these?
So it’s much worse than two different variants. And should someday be much easier. If you have a key context (grocery shopping) you want a custom designed variant on refrigerator small-screens. Otherwise… I hesitate to say “lowest common denominator” or autofitting or anything, but simple rules are starting to emerge that should allow you to have a small set of templates to apply to various other screens, with your standard information set. I think. Need to work this out a bit more, but it’s happening, so check back or keep contributing.
Now I also want to make sure everyone knows I am just a naysayer. I am not against the sort of wonderful, everything-works-great world that many others have been proposing or assuming. I just don’t see it happening naturally, and soon, so want to do something to help it happen.
Okay then. You guys can all keep putting this stuff here, but if it’s strictly around defining OneWeb, and coming up with tactics to help technical teams (especially, but also designers) comply with the philosophy, start working on this page in the Wiki also:
http://patterns.design4mobile.com/index.php/One_Web
Note two things:
1) This is NOT meant to compete with anything W3C — or anyone else I am aware of — is doing. It’s design centric, but until we have a solid definition it might seem like it’s stepping on someone’s toes. Just be assured it’s not trying to. And please feel free to coordinate with us so we cross-link each other if that’s allowed.
2) It’s very, very rough. Much more so than I would normally release, but it’s almost all notes like should go on thetalk page. Try not to delete things that look final, like definitions. Just add to them for now.