Just spotted this from a Novarra chap (Novarra being the guys behind the ire-generating Vodafone content transformation proxy): "A well-designed content transformation server can do a better job of following the mobile best practices than a human author, especially when taking into account the capabilities of the many different mobile devices. The result will be a more consistent, uniform experience."

I'd completely disagree; I don't understand how an automated product can produce a better experience than one designed by someone taking into account the context of use, unique characteristics of mobile, and so forth. I *can* see how an automated proxy might be more rigid in defining its markup, but most of the W3C mobile web best practice recommendations are nothing to do with markup, and everything to do with common sense: something very difficult to codify into cold machine logic.

The MobileOK tests are a different matter (much more focused around markup and easier to automate), but a mobile service that complies with MobileOK without BPG is both technically perfect and practically useless.

Comments

[Gareth Rushgrove]

I couldn't agree more. It reminds me of rumblings around accessibility. Automated software is great as a tool for a skilled practitioner or as a crutch for those less skilled.

[James Pearce]

Please also see dotMobi's response to this submission: http://www.tomhume.org/2007/09/content-transfo.html

Which isn't getting as much coverage as the original Novarra comments :-)

[James Pearce]

c&p error or what?

I meant: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Sep/0030.html

[Daniel Appelquist]

I completely agree, Tom. The Mobile Web Best Practices work is intended to get people to build great mobile-specific user experiences as part of building Web experiences.

[C. Enrique Ortiz]

pretty crazy such statement.

[mika li]

Can't agree more. Machine can learn and be smarter, but it ain't as flexible as the human brains.