Enter Address for e-mail Updates
 |
January 18th, 2001 - E-Pass Washington
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.
Relevant Sources:
[Home] [e-pass device] [Applications] [Resources] [Corporate Info] [Info Request] [News] [Contact] [Industry Links]
Copyright © 1999-2002 E-Pass Technologies, Inc. All rights
reserved.
Problems viewing this site?