WAP
Attacked & Defended
WAP (Wireless Application Protocol) is
getting a solid defense from many in the industry. This comes
after Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, the column of the industry
usability expert, levied some harsh blows upon the standard
interface between mobile phones and the Internet. Nielsen’s
December 10th report bases its findings upon the
responses of 20 subjects asked to use WAP phones. Summarized, the
findings are that “its [WAP] services are poorly designed, have
insufficient task analysis, and abuse existing non-mobile design
guidelines. WAP's killer app is killing time; m-commerce's
prospects are dim for the next several years.” A 70% majority of
the subjects responded unfavorably to WAP and claimed that they
would not be using a WAP phone within the next year.
Nielsen
also suggests that information may take substantially more time to
find with a WAP phone than it does with a PC. His data shows that,
even after a week of use, it took subjects an average of 1.1
minutes to read world headlines, 1.9 minutes to check their local
weather forecast, and 1.6 minutes to read TV listings. The
conclusion, Nielsen claims, is that “accomplishing even the
simplest of tasks takes much too long to provide any user
satisfaction. It simply should not take two minutes to find the
current weather forecast or what will be showing on BBC1 at 8
p.m.”
Among
the realm of defenders now standing to fight for WAP is Danish
research company Strand Consult. Strand claims that Nielsen’s
study is flawed from the outset in that it supposes WAP is to
replace the PC-based Internet. This comparison, Strand says, is
like comparing “Apples to Pears”. The color, graphic
capability, animation, and screen size that make PC-based web
surfing enjoyable cannot be expected by WAP users. Strand instead
sees WAP as providing invaluable information to consumers on the
move – not leisurely entertainment. Thus WAP is not a
replacement technology, but an enabler to a different market.
Strand also faults the study’s use of only 20 subjects – a
number too small to be conclusive in any meaningful way.
Strand
is not alone. Writing for Wap.com, Andy Szebeni recently attacked
Nielsen, saying “It is becoming increasingly apparent that
Nielsen is gaining a large following in the popular press for his
outspoken and fashionable views while the cellphone and mobile
Internet sectors are beginning to question the credibility of his
conclusions. Some have accused him of simply pandering to the
public’s and tabloid press sentiment against WAP in order to
publicise his consultancy business. Certainly his conclusions are
not factually robust and his arguments consist of questionable
logic”.
The
WAP Forum, a non-profit industry association, has also jumped on
the Nielsen findings. In an official statement regarding
Nielsen’s study, they claim that the report’s findings are
“flawed”, and that it “perpetuates unfair and unwarranted
criticisms, and false assumptions about WAP”.
What
may be most telling in this whole story is the fact that the
findings on WAP mirror those of Nielsen’s 1994 study on the
PC-based Web. He points to the past to show that the Web had to
evolve before it became the force it is today. In the same way,
WAP must find a way to become its own technology – not a smaller
version of the PC-based Web. Critics of Nielsen say it always has
been different and that Nielsen has not made a sufficient case to
prove it otherwise. The true answer to WAP’s future, however,
may rest in more than one hand.