Mobile Internet - Human-Computer Interaction and Innovation in Handheld, Mobile and Wearable Technologies - page 277

their successful mobile Internet offering on the
WAP protocol.
Was WAP a waste of time and effort? The
question in itself is not very interesting—it is
more interesting to ask what we learned from the
first years of WAP. Are these lessons sufficiently
valuable that we can consider WAP as a useful—
and necessary—step along the path to effectively
offering Web access on mobiles?
It does not make sense to ask if we should still
have WAP or other mobile-tailored Web support
on mobile devices; instead, we should be asking
when do we need mobile-tailored content on mobile
devices and when is full Internet content needed ?

in Europe and North America failed to take into
consideration the perception and mental models
of users. The situation in Japan and South Korea
shows that the problem was not entirely related to
network and device limitations, but was, instead,
more complex. When the mobile Internet became
available in Japan, the Internet penetration was
fairly low (13.4% in 1998) and mobile phone
penetration high (57.7% in 1998); as a result, most
users did not have a clear perception as to the In-
ternet per se, and so the local operators were able
to advertise the mobile Internet by highlighting its
benefits. At the same time, Western operators and
technology developers continued advertising WAP
with gimmicky technical terms. These lessons are
not unique to WAP, but they clearly show that you
should know your audience, its perceptions and
values, and match your message to these!

DID WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM WAP THAT WE CAN
USE IN THE FUTURE?

WHAT IS THE MOBILE INTERNET? During the first years of WAP, many researchers

published papers related to user interface (UI)
design and usability—for example, Buchanan
et al. (2001), Chittaro and Dal Cin (2002), Kim
et al. (2002), Kaikkonen and Roto (2003), and
Hyvärinen et al . (2005), amongst many others.
In addition to technology and protocol informa-
tion, such papers also contain generic information
related to the usability of, and design for, small
screens and spotty networks; this generic infor-
mation can certainly inform the future design and
evaluation of any services targeted at small screens.
Another obvious lesson is not related to user
interface design or usability, but rather to how
important it is to take user expectations and mental
models into consideration. The disappointment
portrayed by the media in early 2000 reflected
the mismatch between the message and user per-
ception. In the midst of the hype, analysis of the
reasons for the hype took second place to market
messages. The companies developing mobile
technologies are not, however, entirely to blame;
critical public reviews were, in general, pretty
rare. The public message on the mobile Internet

The Mobile Internet can be described in many
different ways. To illustrate its diversity, I have
chosen 4 studies on mobile Internet use, all of
which were published during 2008. The descrip-
tion of the mobile Internet in these papers gives
a good impression of how differently the topic
can be approached. Cui and Roto (2008) studied
mobile Web usage and seem to define use of the
Web on mobiles as viewing Web pages with mobile
browsers; this covers both mobile-tailored and
full Web content. Hinman et al. (2008) compare
mobile and PC Web use in the context of a PC
deprivation study. In this study, the use of the
mobile Web is mainly related to full Web site use
on mobiles. Taylor et al. (2008) seem to perceive
the mobile Web as mostly providing more relevant,
mobile-tailored services.
The fourth definition of the mobile Web
combines all three of the previous approaches:
Kaikkonen (2008) defines the mobile Web as any
access to the Internet via a mobile device- this
approach is rather presenting Internet access