RE: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0
|
View:
New views
4 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
RE: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0
by Rotan Hanrahan
::
Rate this Message:
Thank you Tamara.
Yes, you have indeed understood the essence of the DDR. For
information on adaptors (technologies that use information from the delivery
context to adapt the content delivered to a client) you should review the
material produced by the Device Independence Working Group. Some of the DDWG
members are also participants in the DIWG, so there is a lot of cooperation
between the groups.
While you are reading the DIWG documents, bear in mind that
whenever the phrase "delivery context" is mentioned, this is an opportunity for
the DDR to play a role, because the DDR will be able to provide that part of the
delivery context that relates to "static device
characteristics".
If you have any questions about content adaptation, feel
free to ask questions on the DIWG public mailing list [2]. I have CC'd this
reply to that list.
---Rotan
[2] www-di@... From: Tammy [mailto:taylortk@...] Sent: 05 May 2006 04:20 To: Rotan Hanrahan Cc: public-ddwg@... Subject: Re: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0 What I'd like to know is where can I learn more about the device adapters. I see them being to DDR what CSS is to HTML. Is that a correct analogy? One formats presentation the other formats content. Devices would not be the only thing to adapt to, how about content adapted to education grade level, reading level, intermediate/advanced, disability.... ? Is there a public working group discussion list for the device adapters? Tamara Taylor Systems Analyst/Programmer St. Petersburg College Rotan Hanrahan wrote: For the sake of avoiding the kind of loop that the BPWG experienced in past debates, let us concentrate on how this issue relates to the work of the DDWG. Ms Breck notes that there are many people using a diverse set of mobile devices to access educational material on the Web. Unfortunately, much of the material they may wish to access is not available to them because it is incompatible with their device's capabilities. The suggestion that the authors of existing material would recreate their material to suit this diverse community is interesting, but often impractical for a number of reasons: - The authors may not have the resources (finance, time, etc.) to undertake the effort. - The authors may no longer exist (people move on, people fade away). - Alternative representaions of the content may not be available or appropriate. Even if the authors decided to recreate their content for one set of limited devices, there will be other sets of limited devices that will continue to be incompatible with the content. Adaptation is a potential approach. It can be applied in a variety of ways including: - The original authors recreate their content in an adaptable format. - A third-party provides a proxy that "scrapes" pieces from the original content and delivers it via an adaptation solution. Scraping is a technique that requires heuristics/rules to determine the pieces of the content to be extracted, and then reformats these pieces into new content. In the absence of the original author, the process will have to "guess" the intention of the author (i.e. why certain pieces are in certain places). Sometimes it gets this right, more times it gets it wrong. Regardless of how you obtain the pieces of content, there is always one essential step in the solution: ensuring that what you deliver to the end-user will work on the end-user's device. It is this particular step that the DDR hopes to address. Without it, all of the other processes will be prevented from making the Web accessible to the types of users Ms Breck identifies. Of course, it is obvious that an adaptation process is also key to this. I represent a company that provides professional solutions in this space, and I am joined by others in the DDWG who also provide solutions in this space. There are commercial and non-commercial solutions too. All of these will benefit from reliable device information. The commercial solution providers already build extensive private databases of such information, but a general standardised solution that could be used by anyone in the Web (including its mobile aspect) is necessary if everyone is to benefit equally. Please note that some excellent effort has been made within the Open Source community, in particularly the WURFL project. It is therefore significant that both of the people leading that project are participating in DDWG, and we are grateful for their insights. We are also grateful for the input from the OMA community. All of these people understand that to extend the reach of the Web and ensure that the benefits can be shared regardless of the capabilities or limitations of the devices, it will be necessary to have reliable device information. It is therefore fitting that there are messages on this list from potential user communities (e.g. students of the world) who will benefit directly from a successfully implemented DDR. It is for these people that we put in the effort. In return, I would ask the representatives of these communities to let their colleagues know that the challenge of device diversity is not being ignored, and that we value your public support. We also ask you to support our "neighbouring" Device Independence group, as their goal is to exploit device knowledge with appropriate adaptable authoring technologies, which may eventually make diversity a real benefit, and not the "problem" it is so often perceived to be today. Regards, ---Rotan. -----Original Message----- From: public-ddwg-request@... [public-ddwg-request@...] On Behalf Of judy breck Sent: 05 May 2006 15:25 To: Luca Passani; 'Tim Berners-Lee'; public-ddwg@... Cc: 'tag' Subject: Re: Comments on Device Description Repository Requirements 1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
