[rfc-i] open issues: small and mobile screens
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 31 11:36:11 PDT 2012
On 5/31/2012 11:30 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/31/12 12:19 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> I think that the onus for support for *highly*-constrained devices rests
>> on the consumer, not the producer.
>> I consider "highly constrained" to be a device on which reading current
>> RFCs would be prohibitive (e.g., cellphone). I agree it would be useful
>> to support useful consumer output on a wider range of devices, but we
>> should establish a reasonable lower bound - I'm not sure what that is,
>> but a 4" phone is at least 1/4 what I would consider useful for reading
>> anything beyond a few paragraphs.
> IETF 83 was the first meeting at which I owned a smartphone. Several
> times I found myself without an "unconstrained" device but wanting to
> check a technical point in an RFC or Internet-Draft. With the current
> format it was extremely difficult to even find the right paragraphs, let
> alone read them. It doesn't need to be this way.
You don't *need* to use a phone a way to consult a doc in that environment.
What's your limit, if cellphones output is needed? Are you supporting
displays like on the new watch-based extensions? How about ring-based
displays, which are sure to follow?
There has to be a practical limit to what drives this discussion. If
there isn't, there will never be a solution.
More information about the rfc-interest