移动HTML的误区 [英] Misunderstandings of Mobile HTML
问题描述
有时，移动网站会弹出，就像这个新网站一样：
http：// mobile.answers.com/
（来源很有趣 - 绝对字体大小，JavaScript，内联
样式......这应该是是*可访问*版本，对吧？）
或者这个旧版本：
http://www.google.com/xhtml
然后当然有WAP1使用WML。
我相信你们大多数人都懂HTML，并知道它是如何开始的，
发现这些特定的移动版本有点奇怪 - HTML，之后
all，被设计成与媒体无关（事实上，这是TBL试图解决的最大问题之一）。我在这里结束了我的一些
想法：
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-03-12-n76.html
所以我的问题：
1）为什么人们不理解，可以采取什么措施来说服他们？
2你们知道Netfront Access吗？它是诺基亚6600等智能手机的绝佳浏览器。它不需要任何特殊功能。 HTML（比如
XHTML Mobile Profile），也不需要手持CSS。
3）只是*什么*是XHTML Mobile Profile的目的第一个
的地方？ （除了替换WML，当然更糟糕。）
4）创建第二个双网的问题是什么，有点
滥用媒体独立HTML的原始意图？ （双胞胎
网络我的意思是：额外的移动版本，打印版本，什么不是
版本......）
5）确实存在内容太多或太少的问题，但是你不知道读者会使用媒体x或y读取多少内容。我在手机上看了很多
。您如何看待简单的可访问性
内容的大小？ （如：100k新闻文章有可访问的HTML，但是在小屏幕上是相当长的
）？我的观点：如果内容太大，
没关系，你不要*每个人*阅读它 - 有些内容可能只是
不适合某些背景。
6）W3C / TBL设计的媒体独立性是否有缺陷？
它只在纸上好吗？人们并没有像它们那样使用它，这是肯定的。
7）你有希望吗？变得越来越好，为什么？
另外，我发现与Netfront Access相比，Opera的移动浏览器远远低于
（特别是渲染和可用性）在
界面条款中。
" Philipp Lenssen" <在** @ outer-court.com>在消息中写道
新闻：3a ************* @ individual.net ...
[snip]
< blockquote class =post_quotes>所以我的问题：
1）为什么人们不理解，可以做些什么来说服他们？
2）你们这些人知道Netfront Access吗？它是诺基亚6600等智能手机的绝佳浏览器。它不需要任何特殊功能。 HTML（比如
XHTML Mobile Profile），也不需要掌上电脑。
3）只是*什么*是XHTML Mobile Profile在第一个
的目的？ （除了替换WML，当然更糟糕。）4）创建第二个双网的问题是什么，有点滥用媒体独立HTML的原始意图？ （有两个网页我的意思是：额外的移动版本，打印版本，什么不是
版本......）
IMO建设中没有任何损害给定的最佳页面
媒体/设备，YMMV。
5）确实存在内容太多或太少的问题，但是你从来没有知道读者将使用媒体x或y阅读多少。我在手机上看了很多
。您如何看待简单的内容和大小方面的可访问性？ （如：100k新闻文章有可访问的HTML，但在小屏幕上相当长）？我的意见是：如果内容太大，那就没关系，你不是每个人都要读它 - 有些内容可能根本不适合特定的环境。
见上文。
6）W3C / TBL设计的媒体独立是否存在缺陷？它只在纸上好吗？人们并没有尽可能地利用它，这是肯定的。
7）你有希望事情会变得更好，为什么？
总有希望，但IMO试图让所有设备上的单个网站工作
如果不做出实质性的妥协就不可行。
开放移动联盟是手持设备的行业联盟
，包括一些行业巨头：
http://www.openmobilealliance.org/
WAP教程：
http://www.w3schools.com/wap/
手机& Macromedia的设备开发人员中心：
http://www.macromedia.com / devnet / devices /
可在Macromedia下载WAP扩展：
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/ex...hange%20Search
签名，
我
Philipp Lenssen< in ** @ outer-court.com>写道：我相信你们大多数人都懂HTML，并知道它是如何开始的，
发现这些特定的移动版本有点奇怪 - HTML，
之后，被设计成与媒体无关（事实上，这是TBL试图解决的最大问题之一）。我在这里结束了一些我的想法：
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-03-12-n76.html
所以我的问题：
1）为什么人们不理解以及如何说服他们？
为什么人们认为他们需要单独的文本只有页面，而不是一个带有适当替代内容的单页？
为什么人们认为他们需要一个单独的大字体页面，而不是一个
单页使用浏览器配置使用的任何字体大小？
为什么人们认为他们需要一个单独的适合打印的页面？或者为每个浏览器，分辨率等分开
页面？
当我教过HTML研讨会时，我开始使用一个简单的演示。我展示了
同一页面的几个视图：几个图形浏览器具有不同的
配置，几个不同的样式表，一个文本浏览器，一个掌上电脑
浏览器和音频浏览器。如果你能得到一个带有无纸盲文盲文显示器的人，那么就把它扔进混合物中。今天，
其中一些可以在Opera中显示（作者模式，用户模式，
和一些有趣的用户样式表）。
重点是首先要了解网页可以，应该，
并且必须在不同的浏览中看起来（或声音或感觉）不同
环境。这比忘掉所见即所得的心态容易得多。
-
Darin McGrew， mc **** @ stanfordalumni.org ， http：// www。 rahul.net/mcgrew/
网页设计组， da *** @ htmlhelp.com ， http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
>
当强加密被禁止时，只有不法分子jvyy hfr fgebat rapelcgvba。
2005年3月29日星期二，Darin McGrew写道：
Philipp Lenssen< in ** @ outer-court.com>写道：
1）为什么人们不理解，可以采取什么措施来说服他们？
为什么人们认为他们需要一个单独的纯文本页面，而不是一个带有适当替代内容的单页？
理论：他们真的不这么认为。相反，他们在他们的重要部分上有纹身的
像素精确的视觉设计范例，而且* b $ b *决定*粗暴地向任何认为不是那样的人展示
任何关于无障碍的想法都是他们只会付出的代价
在努力和公众抗议时考虑。
仅文本"页面只是他们演示
原则之一。 *他们认为这是有道理的，无论我们想象的是什么。
羞耻，真的。
Sometimes, mobile sites pop up, like this new one:
http://mobile.answers.com/
(The source is funny -- absolute font-sizes, JavaScript, inline
styles... and this is supposed to be the *accessible* version, right?)
Or this older one:
http://www.google.com/xhtml
And then of course there was WAP1 using WML.
I''m sure most of you here who understand HTML, and know how it began,
find these specific mobile versions somewhat strange -- HTML, after
all, was designed to be media-independent (in fact, it was one of the
biggest problems TBL tried to solve). I''m wrapping up some of my
thoughts here:
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-03-12-n76.html
So my questions:
1) Why don''t people understand and what can be done to convince them?
2) Do you guys know Netfront Access? It''s a great browser for
smartphones like Nokia 6600. It does not need any "special" HTML (like
XHTML Mobile Profile), nor does it need handheld CSS.
3) Just *what* is the purpose of XHTML Mobile Profile in the first
place? (Other than to replace WML, which of course is worse.)
4) What are the problems of creating this second twin-web, somewhat
abusing the original intentions of media-independent HTML? (With twin
web I mean: additional mobile versions, print versions, what-not
versions...)
5) There is indeed a problem of too much content or too little, but you
never know how much a reader will read using media x or y. I read a lot
on my hand phone. What do you think of accessibility in terms of simple
content "size" (as in: 100k news article has accessible HTML, but is
rather long on small screens)? My opinion: if the content is too large,
nevermind, you don''t *everyone* to read it -- some content may simply
not be fitting for a certain context.
6) Is the media-independence as designed by W3C/TBL/whoever flawed? Is
it only good on paper? People aren''t making use of it as much as they
could, that''s for sure.
7) Do you have hope things will ever get better, and why?
On a side-note, I find Opera''s mobile browser to be far inferior
compared to Netfront Access (especially rendering and usability in
terms of interface).
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...
[snip]
So my questions:
1) Why don''t people understand and what can be done to convince them?
2) Do you guys know Netfront Access? It''s a great browser for
smartphones like Nokia 6600. It does not need any "special" HTML (like
XHTML Mobile Profile), nor does it need handheld CSS.
3) Just *what* is the purpose of XHTML Mobile Profile in the first
place? (Other than to replace WML, which of course is worse.)
4) What are the problems of creating this second twin-web, somewhat
abusing the original intentions of media-independent HTML? (With twin
web I mean: additional mobile versions, print versions, what-not
versions...)
IMO there is no harm in building the best possible page for a given
media/device, YMMV.
5) There is indeed a problem of too much content or too little, but you
never know how much a reader will read using media x or y. I read a lot
on my hand phone. What do you think of accessibility in terms of simple
content "size" (as in: 100k news article has accessible HTML, but is
rather long on small screens)? My opinion: if the content is too large,
nevermind, you don''t *everyone* to read it -- some content may simply
not be fitting for a certain context.
See above.
6) Is the media-independence as designed by W3C/TBL/whoever flawed? Is
it only good on paper? People aren''t making use of it as much as they
could, that''s for sure.
7) Do you have hope things will ever get better, and why?
There''s always hope but IMO trying to make a single site work on all devices
is not viable without making substantial compromises.
The Open Mobile Alliance is an industry consortium for hand held devices
that includes some industry heavyweights:
http://www.openmobilealliance.org/
WAP tutorial:
http://www.w3schools.com/wap/
Mobile & Devices Developer Center at Macromedia:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/devices/
WAP extensions available for download at Macromedia:
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/ex...hange%20Search
Signed,
me
Philipp Lenssen <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:I''m sure most of you here who understand HTML, and know how it began,
find these specific mobile versions somewhat strange -- HTML, after
all, was designed to be media-independent (in fact, it was one of the
biggest problems TBL tried to solve). I''m wrapping up some of my
thoughts here:
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-03-12-n76.html
So my questions:
1) Why don''t people understand and what can be done to convince them?
Why do people think they need a separate text-only page, rather than a
single page with appropriate alternative content?
Why do people think they need a separate large-print page, rather than a
single page that uses whatever font size the browser is configured to use?
Why do people think they need a separate printer-friendly page? Or separate
pages for each browser, resolution, etc.?
When I''ve taught HTML workshops, I started with a simple demo. I showed
several views of the same page: a couple graphical browsers with different
configurations, a couple different style sheets, a text browser, a handheld
browser, and an audio browser. If you can get ahold of someone with a
paperless braille display, then throw that into the mix, too. Today,
several of those could be displayed within Opera (author mode, user mode,
and a couple interesting user style sheets).
The point is to start with the understanding that web pages can, should,
and must look (or sound, or feel) different in different browsing
environments. That''s a lot easier than unlearning a WYSIWYG mindset.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"When strong encryption is outlawed, only outlaws jvyy hfr fgebat rapelcgvba."
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Darin McGrew wrote:
Philipp Lenssen <in**@outer-court.com> wrote:1) Why don''t people understand and what can be done to convince them?
Why do people think they need a separate text-only page, rather than a
single page with appropriate alternative content?
Theory: they don''t really think that. Rather, they have the
pixel-exact visual design paradigm tattooed on their vital parts, and
are *determined* to exhibit rudely to anyone who thinks otherwise that
any idea of accessibility is something that they''re only going to
consider at great effort and public protest.
The "text-only" page is just one of their demonstrations of that
principle. *They* think it makes sense, whatever we might suppose.
Shame, really.
这篇关于移动HTML的误区的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
