W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > October 2007

[minutes] Thursday October 18 Teleconf

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:28:09 +0200
To: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Cc: BPWG <member-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1192721290.24095.36.camel@cumulustier>

Hi,

The minutes of the BPWG teleconf held today (Oct 18) are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html

and copied as text below.

Dom

        Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
                              18 Oct 2007

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2007Oct/0034.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Ed_Mitukiewicz, Dom, jo, SeanPatterson, Adam, Kai_Dietrich,
          DKA, , srowen, shah, achuter,

   Regrets
          Mike, Ignacio, Abel, Robert_Finean, Bryan, Charles, Magnus,
          Bruno

   Chair
          Jo

   Scribe
          jo, srowen

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Transition to Public proceedings
         2. [6]mobileOK Tests
         3. [7]LC-1856
         4. [8]LC-1854
         5. [9]Task Force Reports
         6. [10]Accessibility Task Force
         7. [11]Checker TF Report
         8. [12]F2F Agenda for Boston
         9. [13]Seoul Questionnaire
     * [14]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Transition to public proceedings

   jo: ACTION-559

   <dom> [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/559

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/559

   <edm> See also
   [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Oct/0044.htm
   l

     [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Oct/0044.html

   edm: I think we agreed that everything would be conducted in public
   unless otherwise requested

   I think we addressed remaining concerns

   <scribe> new home page will be public

   only private items would be email, and this would not be
   retroactively applied to old messages and so on

   <Zakim> dom, you wanted to comment on visibility of standing

   dom: we can make public only name and affiliation of members

   keep current version, or create separate public version?

   (+1 to making a public version if it's easy)

   <dom> +1

   jo: I support this

   <edm> +1

   <dom> [17]Public version of the participation list

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=37584&public=1

   jo: Let's assume we will have a public version
   ... old private material will remain private

   <Kai> I for one would rather not have the usage data I provided for
   the group in the public domain

   need plan to enact this

   <dom> [I just made our Group page public]

   dom: happy to make any pages public

   jo: what about making a new page?

   probably don't want to bring into public view a page linking to old
   drafts, etc.

   dom: wouldn't this break links?

   jo: but we would leave existing documents in place

   edm: see message for specifics. I examined the links and it looks
   fine

   in general we agreed old docs remain private

   jo: want to avoid broken links off home page, to old docs

   will take an action to discuss with appropriate person about this

   <jo> ACTION: Jo to progress public/private plan with Dom etc.
   [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-580 - Progress public/private plan with
   Dom etc. [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-10-25].

mobileOK Tests

   jo: have written proposed responses to all LC3 comments, except
   those that came in yesterday?

   srowen: right, though they are mostly editorial

   jo: getting ready to request transition to CR

   but dom has suggested we should define exit criteria

   dom: to transition to CR, of course need to finalize document and
   answer all comments

   need to agree on exit criteria too

   for the BP document, we required that each BP be implemented twice
   on a web site

   suggest we need examples of mobileOK Basic compliant web sites,
   maybe 5-10

   need to include the requirement of having checker implementations

   we have the library that was just released for example

   maybe need URLs to test mobileOK Basic

   <Zakim> edm, you wanted to clarify some details for Dom

   jo: need compliant web sites, implementation, and test suites for a
   checker

   srowen: i agree with the criteria and believe we can argue we have
   met them

   kai: dom said we need to implement everything twice: ?

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a)
   10 mobileOK compliant Web sites, b) 2 checkers implement each aspect
   of each test c) a test suite to verify the correct operation of
   checkers

   dom: this was the criteria we chose for BP document, but we don't
   need that criteria for mobileOK Basic

   I mean we should show that the main page is mobileOK on a site, not
   necessarily every single page

   +1

   dom: maybe just 1 checker?

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a)
   10 mobileOK compliant Web pages, b) there exists a checker that
   checks each aspect of each test c) a test suite to verify the
   correct operation of checkers

   <Kai> +1

   <jo> RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a) 10
   mobileOK compliant Web pages, b) there exists a checker that checks
   each aspect of each test c) a test suite to verify the correct
   operation of checkers

   <jo>
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mobileOK-
   basic10-tests-20070928/

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070928/

   jo: there are more, but they may all be editoriala

   (srowen: I will enter those new comments into tracker)

   jo: LC-1855

   srowen: think that maybe 'usability' is just a slightly overloaded
   term

   just wanting to say mobileOK Basic is looking for basic problems,
   not confirming a site is great

   I think the intended point is clear so would be ok with current
   wording

   jo: is there a better word?

   achuter: the tests are testing for the negative, for problems rather
   than positive things

   jo: think it's not so important and we can leave as is?

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1855 No We take your point but we don't
   think any ambiguity is introduced by this

   srowen: yes I think one can construe these as more about following
   specs rather than usability

   +1

   <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1855 No We take your point but we don't think
   any ambiguity is introduced by this

   LC-1859 resolves last week

   jo: LC-1857
   ... agree that we probably do want to count 302/401 'against' the
   page

   <Kai> He seems to think exclusively aobut a 301 error

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1857 No We are keen to minimise rounds
   trips and reduce the overall data transfer burden which is why it is
   like it is

   <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1857 No We are keen to minimise rounds trips and
   reduce the overall data transfer burden which is why it is like it
   is

LC-1856

   srowen: tester doc does define behavior of test clients, but this
   does not mean mobileOK Basic tests define client behavior tests

   jo: so we should note that the test client behavior we describe is
   not necessarily suggested for clients?

   kai: so this is resolved yes if we are making an editorial change

   srowen: yes

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1856 Yes, we agree that it is worth
   clarifying that the checkers behavior should not be taken as bing
   indicative of how we think a client should behave in general

   <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1856 Yes, we agree that it is worth clarifying
   that the checkers behavior should not be taken as bing indicative of
   how we think a client should behave in general

LC-1854

   jo: yes -- warn means a couple things, is it worth capturing? can't
   be determined, or may not be so serious?

   srowen: yes, think it's worth a brief note

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of
   clarification is warranted

   +1

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of
   clarification is warranted e.g. that it can't be determined, that it
   may be because it is dubious practice that in some circumstances
   can't be avoided

   <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of clarification is
   warranted e.g. that it can't be determined, that it may be because
   it is dubious practice that in some circumstances can't be avoided

   Topic LC-1858

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1858 Yes, partial, the bevavior is
   deliberate in order to allow for the testing of error pages. We will
   add a note clarifying this.

   <jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1858 Yes, partial, the bevavior is deliberate in
   order to allow for the testing of error pages. We will add a note
   clarifying this.

Task Force Reports

   <Zakim> dom, you wanted to propose a few amendments to the proposed
   resolution: s/Web sites/Web sites hompages/; and ask about "2
   checkers..."

   jo: CT taskforce let group decide what to do

   dom: group is OK with publishing the doc provided we change the
   title a bit about 'challenges'

   jo: I meant we should say they don't need group resolutions to do
   this

   we just want something to happen quickly -- approve all this
   including whatever further editorial changes are needed

   dom: yes

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do and
   providing changes are editorial no further resolutions to publish
   required from BPWG

   <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do
   about Problem Statement Problem and providing changes are editorial
   no further resolutions to publish required from BPWG

   <jo> RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do about
   Problem Statement Problem and providing changes are editorial no
   further resolutions to publish required from BPWG

Accessibility Task Force

   achuter: on accessibility, there has not been much participation

   there has not been much progress on the document

   lack of participation remains an issue

   concern is about spending effort to become mobileOK, but then having
   to do more, or undo that work, to be accessible

   dom: who is participating in the accessibility TF now?

   achuter: myself, maybe someone from CTIC. Maybe Bruno, Dave from
   Segala. Little has happened yet though

   jo: possibly Charles as well

   achuter: David from Barcelona has tried to send comments but haven't
   gone through

   jo: let's discuss at F2F

Checker TF Report

   <jo> scribe: jo

   <dom> [I have started fixing a few of them (bugs) :) ]

   srowen: alpha release out, please play with it and report bugs,
   there may be a few?
   ... another release before F2F

   <scribe> scribe: srowen

   dom: send me an e-mail if you would like the URI of a very
   experimental web interface to this implementation

F2F Agenda for Boston

   <jo> [20]Proposed agenda

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-Spring-2008-F2F/

   <dom>
   [21]http://www.w3.org/mid/C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B47D4091@mtl
   dsvr01.DotMobi.local

     [21] http://www.w3.org/mid/C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B47D4091@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local

   <DKA> +1

   jo: group dinner?

   +1

   jo: (reviews agenda)

   need to review task forces and possibly kill, say, HTML 5 taskforce
   if needed

   jo: (still reviewing agenda)

   we have a very large turnout, including observers

   <dom> [it is good practice to send an ack mail to observers, fwiw]

   <dom> [22]Registrants for BPWG meeting

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2007/registrants#mwbp

Seoul questionnaire

   <jo> Need people to respond to Seoul quesionnaire, at the moment it
   is in doubt as we only have 8 positive responses.

   <jo> (thanks to Sean for Scribing)

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Jo to progress public/private plan with Dom etc.
   [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 15:29:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:56 UTC