[minutes] BPWG F2F in Sophia, day 3 from Francois Daoust on 2008-06-18 (public-bpwg@w3.org from June 2008)

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:50:43 +0200
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-ID: <485912B3.1090505@w3.org>

Hi,

The minutes of our busy Accessibility/mobileOK/Korean TF/... day during
the F2F are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html

... and copied as text below.

In short:
- Accessibility document: New structure is much simpler. 2 weeks for
EOWG to review. Feedback from BPWG would be more than welcome.
Publication as an updated Working Draft after that. We agreed to leave
the "do it both" page in the document for publication, even though it's
mostly a placeholder.

- mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0: need to contact as many content providers as
possible to try to meet our "10 highly visible mobileOK web sites"
entrance criterium for PR. Last Call comment from Dom should be resolved
by minor editorial clarifications.

- mobileOK Pro: reviewed a few tests and agreed that the material should
be put in a new document, eventually published as a Group Note, such as
an addendum/clarification/explanatory text to BP 1, closing the gap
between BP1 and BP2 (and linked to from the BP1 Errata document). Work
on the document will be carried out in the main body of the Working
Group. Kai remains the editor. The Pro TF is closed.

- mobileOK Licensing: clarification that the license refers to a URI and
not to a representation, and that the mobileOK Basic logo is not needed
anymore (one logo to rule them all). Several items for Dom to check with
legal team.

- mobileOK Scheme: agreed to reduce the document to an explanation as to
how BP1, mobileOK Basic, the checker, the license and POWDER label fit
together.

- POWDER vocabulary: agreed to drop the document and include its
material in the mobileOK Scheme document.

- report from Korean TF: update on the gap analysis.

- aspirational level of mobileOK: idea dropped as it's already included
in the mobileOK logo usage rule

Francois.

18 Jun 2008

[2]Agenda

[2] http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd3jk8v_114tkbg6kgj

See also: [3]IRC log

[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-irc

Attendees

Present
Abel, Adam, DKA, Dom, Ed, Francois, Jo, Jonathan, Kai,
Manrique, Miguel, Rob, Scott, SeanP, Sunghan, Zack,
bruno_von_niman(ETSI_observer)

Regrets
Chair
jo, DKA

Scribe
francois, Adam, SeanP, edm, rob

Contents

* [4]Topics
1. [5]Relationship between accessibility and Mobile Web Best
Practices
2. [6]mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0
3. [7]mobileOK Pro
4. [8]mobileOK Licensing
5. [9]mobileOK Scheme
6. [10]Report from Korean task-force
7. [11]POWDER update
8. [12]Aspirational Level of mobileOK
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________

Relationship between accessibility and Mobile Web Best Practices

<achuter>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/

[14]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/

dka: alan, could you walk us through the current status?
... I'd like to get to the decision to publish a new draft of this
document.
... so, what I'd really like to know is what the status of the doc
is, and how EOWG feels about it.

alan: The overview document maps to 5 other documents.
... the initial doc promoted the adoption of BP by, for instance
emphasizing that some of them also helped people with disabilities
... but this was confusing, so we decided to split it up in two
different documents.
... The benefit part was moved to another document not referred to
from this document

<achuter>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-helps-20080612/

[15]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-helps-20080612/

alan: This other document was built on the ashes of the initial
complete document, but is not our main focus at the time.
... Back to the 13 June overview doc
... The structure is simpler, it needs to be reviewed, but it's much
more complete

<dom>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/mwbp-wcag20.html

[16]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/mwbp-wcag20.html

alan: For instance, from MWBP to WCAG 2.0
... Take a look at "Addressing WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria"
... You'll see the title of the SC, the definition, and what you've
already done for it if you've followed the BP
... It's much clearer now!

<dom>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/wcag20-mwbp.html

[17]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/wcag20-mwbp.html

dka: and from WCAG 2.0 to MWBP, it's organized by best practices

alan: yes, it's organized by the recommendation you're moving
towards, which makes more sense

dan: so what about the best practices that don't have any text?
That's because they don't address any SC?

alan: yes, I guess we should remove them or annotate them in some
way

dka: what do we still need to do?

alan: quite a few editorial updates
... and the EOWG needs 2 more weeks to review the document

dka: are you pretty happy in terms of the current structure of the
document and the number of documents?

alan: yes

dka: 7 documents?

dom: actually, it's just 7 pages of the same document

dka: OK, I was afraid this could lead to 7 TR documents

dom: no, only one

dka: what was the feedback from the EOWG on the structure?

alan: they like it better as well

<dom> [18]http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/

[18] http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/

<dom> [19]http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences

[19] http://www.w3.org/WAI/mobile/experiences

alan: the overview is short, but it contains before any other links
2 links to more detailed documents on the matter

<dom> [+1 on moving up the ToC just after the Status section]

alan: and we'll shift things around to have links moved to the top
of the document as much as possible

[going through the two mentioned documents]

dka: has EOWG specifically required feedback from us on the document
that compares mobile devices and people with disabilities?

alan: no, but that would be interesting

<achuter>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/together.html

[20]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080613/together.html

dka: it seems the best thing to do would be to action someone (not
you alan) to review the document.

alan: yes.
... Another issue is how to do MWBP and WCAG at the same time?
... It's fairly complicated to present both at the same time in a
document

dka: is this document part of the suite of documents?

alan: yes
... A lot of people have to do it: government sites for instance
have to do both

dka: stepping back for a second. To move something to working draft,
then I think we need to consider this part as a stand-alone
document, and publish the rest.
... "When you have an elephant, you have to eat it one byte at a
time"
... issue a public working draft and having some press coverage
might be useful
... dom, do you think we could package this with the huge press
release we're about to make?

dom: well, it's going to be confusing, at best
... I'm not sure press coverage is what we need. Blogging about it.
Also guys from CTIC which have a tool to help build such content
might be of some help.

dka: my suggestion is that we unlink this part from the rest, and
that we publish the rest as a public working draft.

alan: right.

dka: We need to decide whether we need to omit the blank bits from
the document or provide some text around the BP that don't have any
SC match (and vice versa)

alan: I think it should just go as a list at the top of the page

dka: OK. Plus 2 weeks for the EOWG to review. I'd like to be in a
position to agree to publish the doc on 26 June 2008.
... do you think you can address the bits we just talked about in
the next few days?

alan: yes.

jo: I'm midly concerned as dom, that the publication be buried if we
publish it among many others.

dka: understood.
... alan, could you ask EOWG to ask us for feedback with a time
limit?

alan: yes

francois: wondering about the "do it both" document. Shouldn't we
leave it in as a placeholder to ask for public feedback?
... It doesn't prevent publication as a Public Working Draft.
... an we may still remove the page later on if we end up not having
time to work on it.

dka: agreed.
... alan, is everything clear?

alan: yes.

dka: congratulations alan. It's a lot of work, obviously, and pretty
useful.

alan: thank you. It would be great if participants from the group
could review the document. I understand we don't have time here to
review it point by point.

dka: I was at a conference some weeks ago, and while mentioning the
best practices, the first question I got was: "how does that relate
with accessibility?"

dom: yes, I have the same question over and over again.

dka: in another conference, talking to people that are managing web
sites for big companies, there was a lot of interest in both mobile
and accessibility areas. In short, I think this document will be
well received.

mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

dom: The doc was published as Last Call last week. One LC comment so
far... er... mine.
... Basically, it's just more clarification on the document
... and francois replied with suggestions that are close to proposed
resolutions.
... So, I'm still fairly optimistic that this Last Call will be an
easy one.
... I don't think we should resolve the items right now.
... 2 items to address: 1. the entrance criteria to Proposed
Recommendation phase. We have a test suite, we nearly have a
checker, and the remaining criterium is the 10 mobileOK highly
visible web sites.
... Jo created an issue re. that topic, we already have a few sites,
but I'm not sure we have 10 sites yet.
... and 2. discussion on mobileOK Scheme

dka: are we suggesting that we change the entrance criteria?

dom: no. I was just wondering if people knew about some more web
sites that could be part of the list.
... One thing we haven't talked about is tools that produce
mobileOK, and as a matter of fact, I know about 3-4 tools that
produce mobileOK content

<dom> ISSUE-256?

<trackbot> ISSUE-256 -- Call for 10 mobileOK sites -- OPEN

<trackbot>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/256

[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/256

dom: and that's even more important in my mind than the list of 10
web sites

jo: Could we make a statement to our HTML5 friends that objects
processing is really hard?

<dom>
[22]http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/embedded0.html#the-o
bject

[22]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-html5-20080610/embedded0.html#the-object

jo: It's not clear to me when, from an architectural point of view,
W3C recommends the use of adaptation on the client side.

dom: well, one of the goals of HTML5 is that it explains how to
process object elements
... one improvement that HTML5 brings is video, SVG embedding, and
the like, so you don't really need object elements in most common
cases.
... I'm not sure we have sufficient experience with this to send
something useful

jo: we've observed that it brings the issue of tasting content which
is something you want to avoid in the mobile world.

dom: right, but there's a precise way to avoid that.

jo: not widely implemented

dom: right, but it exists.

<Zakim> francois, you wanted to mention XHTML2

francois: I just wanted to mention that XHTML2 generalized the
fallback behavior of object elements to ANY element

dka: what is your plan to get 10 mobileOK web sites?

dom: well, content providers around the table may check that their
highly visible web site is mobileOK for instance.

dka: could we create a contest of some kind?
... same as the XPrize contest to reach space

<dom>
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jun/0014.htm
l

[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jun/0014.html

francois: wondering if we could go through the list and see how many
mobileOK web sites we still need

dom: [going through the list and emphazing the different sites and
tools we already have]
... I think we already have a strong story to tell, but if we could
complete that list, that would be great.

dka: so, that's "great".
... what can we do today to create an action plan to reach the
target?

<dom> checking [24]http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/gmast/mob/-/mobile/ ...]

[24] http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/gmast/mob/-/mobile/

dka: I'm thinking about BBC for instance, that are very
mobile-friendly, but that may just lack awareness on mobileOK and
thus fail a bit. I would be happy to take an action to try to
contact them.

<dom> [5 error types
[25]http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.
uk%2Fgo%2Fgmast%2Fmob%2F-%2Fmobile%2F ]

[25]
http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fgo%2Fgmast%2Fmob%2F-%2Fmobile%2F

dka: Would other people be willing to do the same with other content
providers?

dom: the twitter web site has only two minor errors. Anyone with
contacts over there?

<dom> [2 very simple errors on m.facebook.com too
[26]http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=m.facebook.com%2F ]

[26] http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=m.facebook.com%2F

<dom>
[27]http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fm.twitter.
com ]

[27]
http://validator.w3.org/mobile/?docAddr=http%3A%2F%2Fm.twitter.com

<scribe> ACTION: dan to contact BBC to see if they can make their
mobile web site mobileOK [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-796 - Contact BBC to see if they can make
their mobile web site mobileOK [on Daniel Appelquist - due
2008-06-25].

kai: would be worth contacting content providers that have only one
or two errors. It doesn't cost much, and they would most probably
appreciate the feedback.

<Kai_> test

[bruno introducing himself, ETSI, and liaison between W3C and ETSI]

mobileOK Pro

<adam> Scribe: Adam

<scribe> ScribeNick: Adam

<dom> ScribeNick: adam

<Kai_> latest draft:
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/dra
fts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080610

[29]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080610

kai: Task Force has gone through the document in detail. Status is
now waiting for feedback.
... Several questions that need to be answered. Discussions this wk
may have changed things.
... What kind of document should this be?
... What form of document is will impact overall message for working
group.
... Checker deals with machine testable part, this doc focusses on
human testable page.
... But because of this the tests we can run are subjective.
... We have reworked tests to try and increase repeatability.

jo: Lets run through document in detail to refresh our memories.

Kai: [ Describing Test Format ]
... For example, 4.1 Access Keys

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to mention the testing environment

jo: Test format is pretty clear, but test environment is missing.
Some tests presuppose use of DDC and some don't, this is quite an
intricate question.

Kai: Intention was to use DDC, but there is not an emulator.

jo: So there is a question of how tests are carried out. But there
are also some tests which specify *not* using the DDC.

<dom> Test on device capabilities:
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/dra
fts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080610#device_capabilities

[30]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080610#device_capabilities

jo: Recommending to test with a number of devices immediately makes
the tests difficult to repeat.

<dom> PROPOSED ISSUE: What is the testing environment for mobileOK
Pro: DDC or not, and if not, how does it affect repeatibility

dka: Key point is that if you are not using DDC then there is an
issue with repeatability. Do we need an issue to track this.

kai: General thrust was to use the DDC emulator but we don't have it
yet.

<dom> PROPOSED ISSUE: What is the testing environment for mobileOK
Pro: DDC or not, and if not, how does it affect repeatibility

dka: We could consider restructuring document around: tests that use
DDC, and tests that don't.

<dom> PROPOSED ISSUE: Which mobileOK Pro tests needs the DDC and
which don't?

<dom> ISSUE: Which mobileOK Pro tests needs the DDC and which don't?

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-266 - Which mobileOK Pro tests needs the
DDC and which don't? ; please complete additional details at
[31]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/266/edit .

[31] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/266/edit

<dom> ISSUE-266: in particular, when the tests require that it's not
DDC, how does it affect repeatibility?

<trackbot> ISSUE-266 Which mobileOK Pro tests needs the DDC and
which don't? notes added

kai: [back to Access Keys]
... This is about primary navigation links on the page. You can't
have access keys that change from page to page so only makes sense
to assign access keys to primary navigation links.
... [Going through 4.1 Access Keys requirements]

jo: We all agree that access keys are good, the difficult thing is
to turn such things into actionable statements.
... In web applications, for example, there are very few pages so
this might be a moot point.
... This might introduce too many caveats and cloud the issues.

kai: Consistency can still be required in web applications
regardless of whether or not there are multiple pages.

jo: Agreed. But the definition as it is written doesn't capture the
essence of this.
... We probably know what you mean by "Link declaration summary
page" but if we are making "pass/fail" demands a general
understanding isn't enough. We need to be more precise in the
language.
... The "identical across all pages" is probably not really what you
mean. This is very difficult to word in a way that can't be refuted.

kai: We can't provide an exhaustive list of examples. What degree of
detail do we need to go into?

jo: Agree. But how much should we provide is an open question. I am
trying to anticipate the kind of comments we will receive on this.

[break for coffee]

kai: We will look at a few tests to get a feel for the document and
then lead back into the broader discussions.
... 4.6 Device Capabilities is a good place to start discussion.
... we cannot cover all possibilities and there may be devices that
have capabilities not supported by the DDC, so we have turned this
test around
... the test condition is that the content should not be
artificially limited to the DDC on devices that have greater
capabilities.
... for example, if the width is limited to the DDC screen-width on
devices that have more real-estate then this is a fail.

jo: Under test procedure you refer to "unadapted, original
content"... The presupposes that the original content wasn't
intended for the DDC. Some more careful wording is needed.
... this document needs to encourage people to think of mobile
representation as the natural one.

<SeanP> Scribe: SeanP

<scribe> Scribenick: SeanP

jo: Another comment: it is OK to offer an alternative to something
like video to the DDC

kai: Alan had posted this comment as well. [Comment made on the
mailing list]
... 4.4 Background Image Readability
... patterned or photographic bg image discouraged but not
prohibited
... Use a test for color blindness that tests for color
contrast--test is fairly deterministic

jo: Is this an average contrast or each and every pixel?

kai: Each and every one.
... probably permissible to use the extremes.
... 4.5 Balance
... weren't exactly sure what to do with this test, so we just
picked a value.
... example is a sitemap--may have well over 30 links.
... how many links does the user have to click through without being
annoyed--30 was picked.

jo: Should make a note about the different navigation models for
this test.

dom: Safe to assume that we are using a scheme that we have to go
through every link.

dka: worth stating that we are using a nav model that requires all
links to be traversed.

dom: this is a case where we need to make clear that there is no
pointing device

kai: if we are going to redfine the DDC...

dka: not redefining--refining

kai: this is a big step...

dka: we want to say that the DDC has a keypad and supports access
keys
... and is focus based

kai: What is the feeling on a test like this where a number is just
picked?

jo: We did that in other cases and we had justification in doing
that--not arbitrary.

kai: Google had some information, but had some odd numbers.

jo: nytimes had 500 links on the home page.

kai: So is it OK to just pick a value?

dom: should be backed up by some data.
... 30 is not a bad number.

jo: Shouldn't have to scroll over more than 2 screens of links.
... could use this to compute a number.

kai: Could come up with a way to construct a number, but would still
be contrived.
... would be great to have data, but don't have it.

adam: Will check into whether Google has data on this.

<dom> ACTION: Adam to check on availability of data about the number
of acceptable links in a focus-based browser [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-797 - Check on availability of data about
the number of acceptable links in a focus-based browser [on Adam
Connors - due 2008-06-25].

scott: Some devices could be 10 links, other devices could be 30
links because of differences in devices.

jo: We're assuming the DDC.

kai: Another example: 4.3 Avoid Free Text

<dom> [I think we should look at least at one test that already
exists in mobileOK basic but that mobileOK pro completes]

kai: How do you deal with this? There will be forms where you have
to type in your name.
... think of anything where you have to type in an unknown value.
... you can make lists of possible values. Where do you decide when
the list is too big?

jo: good example.

kai: Really cannot put a limit on these lists--just needs to be
finite.

dom: Something around 30 should be the max since you'll need to
click through all of them.
... should think of a way to trim the list if it is over 30.
... or use free text.

kai: 4.15 Deficiencies
... one of the wishy-washy tests that are difficult.
... how do you deal with future changes to devices?
... try to bracket the test to: look for deficiencies that impinge
significantly on the usability of the content being offered.

dka: Out of time but these items are good examples of the work that
has gone into the document.
... would like to have a plan for getting this document out there.
... what do you think we should do, Kai?

Kai: Does the group think this document make sense?
... we need feedback from the public. Should put it out there as a
public working draft.

dka: 2 questions to ask: Does the material in the document make
sense? Does the stated goal of the document make sense?
... Is this a rec track document or a note? What should it be
called?

<dom> +1 on usefulness of the content of the document

dka: I think there is a lot of valuable material in this, but these
questions need to be answered.
... I've already expressed some concerns about mobileOK Pro. Some of
the problems are extremely difficult. What you have come up with
could be extremely useful.
... Given the amount of work required, I don't think it is
reasonable to develop mobileOK Pro within the time left in the
charter.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the
work required to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards
creating mobileOK Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse
the material that has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new
document, such as an addendum...

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to support the notion that the content of the
document is extremely useful and to add something to what Dom stole
of my thunder and to add that Dom just stole that

dka: I suggest creating an addendum to another document like
MobileOK Basic.

jo: Agree with Dom. Has been 18 months since BP 1 was released.
Should be thinking about releasing explanatory text about BP 1.
... This is would be useful for doing this.

kai: We have a big gap between BP 1 and BP 2. This document could be
used as kind of a BP 1.5 to close the gap between BP 1 and 2.

<jo> +1 to what Kai just said

dka: I like the idea, don't support calling it BP 1.5.

<dom> (I think this relates to ISSUE-185)

<dom> ISSUE-185?

<trackbot> ISSUE-185 -- What are the mobileOK Full deliverables? --
OPEN

<trackbot>
[33]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/185

[33] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/185

dka: I think it makes sense to have addendum to BP 1. Is it rec
track or a note?

dom: 2 options: Add kind of an addendum to update BP 1 and clarify
them, or create a new document.

kai: I think it would make the most sense to modify the current
document.

<jo> -1 to a 2nd edition

dom: Probably the most logical solution even though it would be more
work.

<jo> -1000000 to a second edition

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to think that it is too close to the
publication of the BP doc to issue a 2nd edition

dom: Biggest problem will be resources.

jo: Don't have the time to work on second edition of BP 1.
Technically, BP 1 has not been published.
... Best thing would be to issue a note.
... probably too close to publishing BP 1 as a rec to create a
second edition.

<Zakim> francois, you wanted to wonder about new BPs

jo: Best to let BP 1 be a rec by itself for a while.

dom: Rec always has a link to errata. One way to link to the
mobileOK Pro stuff would be as errata.

jo: Value of this document goes further than errata.

<dom> "Success criteria for MWBP"?

kai: What about treating Pro as as supplement and putting a link in
BP 1 to it.

dom: Could put a link before it goes to rec, but don't think this
new supplement would be ready yet.

jo: Could link it as errata.

<Zakim> francois, you wanted to wonder about new BPs and comparison
with WCAG 2.0 quickref

francois: Are we planning on adding new BPs for BP 1?

kai: Not new BPs, but were thinking of adding extensions for Pro,
but decided not too.

francois: WCAG document had side companiion doc about how to meed
the requirements. Could we something like that? May not have enough
time.

Kai: Side companion OK, not a quick reference.

francois: WCAG quick reference is not really a quick reference.

kai: If we have another document that is a side companion some
people will look at one and not the other.

dka: If we move Pro to being an addendum, what happens to the Pro
task force?
... I think it would make sense to bring this work into the working
group.

jo: Sure, why not?

kai: Every time we talk about this in group issues come up, so we
might as well have all our discussions with the entire group.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTON: The group agrees to close the MobileOK Pro
task force and bring the document (rebranded as BP1 addendum) into
the main body of the working group. Kai to remain as editor.

kai: I can continue editing the document.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTON: The group agrees to close the MobileOK Pro
task force and bring the document (rebranded as BP1 addendum) into
the main body of the working group. Kai to remain as editor.

<dom> +1 on both

<adam> +1

<manrique> +1

<Kai_> +1

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to raise a point of order

<jo> +1 to both

RESOLUTION: Given the timeframe of the group, and the work required
to make MobileOK real, we should not aim towards creating mobileOK
Pro in this charter time. Rather we should reuse the material that
has been produced in the MobileOK Pro TF in a new document, such as
an addendum/clarification/explanatory text to BP 1, closing the gap
between BP1 and BP2 (and linked to from the BP1 Errata document).

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The addendum to BP1 previously known as
MobileOK Pro will be a working group Note.

<Kai_> +1

<dom> +1

<jo> +1

RESOLUTION: The addendum to BP1 previously known as MobileOK Pro
will be a working group Note.

dka: One more mobileOK agendum: Scheme and Licensing.

RESOLUTION: The group agrees to close the MobileOK Pro task force
and bring the document (rebranded as BP1 addendum) into the main
body of the working group. Kai to remain as editor.

mobileOK Licensing

<dom> ISSUE-250?

<trackbot> ISSUE-250 -- The mobileOK License -- OPEN

<trackbot>
[34]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/250

[34] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/250

dom: Issue 250

<Kai_> ACTION: Kai to work proposed changes into the mobileOK Pro
document and then turn it over to the group [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-798 - Work proposed changes into the
mobileOK Pro document and then turn it over to the group [on Kai
Scheppe - due 2008-06-25].

<dom> [36]Proposed licenses for mobileOK Basic

[36] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-mobileok-policy.html

dom: mobileOK policy document summary
... has the the mobileOK logo; protecting mobileOK in two ways:
trademark and copyright for the logo
... need to conform to spec to claim you are mobileOK.

dka: simple, thanks for W3C for registering mobileOK as a trademark.

jo: Still have the same problems with this that we had a year ago.
... is not clear that mobileOK is on the representation of the
resource and not the URI.
... need to have the proper view on what mobileOK really means.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: "This page" in the MobileOK license
refers to a URI, not a representation.

dom: We need to be clear as a group: My understanding that mobileOK
refers to the URI and not the representation.
... this is a legal document, not a technical one.

kai: I think that Jo's point was good.

dom: Should be on URI so you can put it on the desktop view.

RESOLUTION: "This page" in the MobileOK license refers to a URI, not
a representation.

<JonathanJ> Should we need more clarification "mobileOK Logo" and
"mobileOK Basic Logo" ? Can it be use in same condition ?

jonathan: mobileOK logo and mobileOK basic logo are different.

dom: since mobileOK Pro will no longer exist--mobileOK logo will be
used for mobileOK basic.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK logo will be used to
represent conformance to MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 - there will be One
Logo.

<jo> +1

<DKA> +1

<rob> +1

<Kai_> +1

<dom> +1

<adam> +1

RESOLUTION: the MobileOK logo will be used to represent conformance
to MobileOK Basic Test 1.0 - there will be One Logo.

dka: Is there small version of this logo?

<francois> [side node to jo: mobileOK Pro is mentioned in mobileOK
Basic Tests document and will have to be removed (as a
non-substantive change!) from the draft before it is published as a
Proposed Recommendation]

<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to wonder about the mobile-friendliness of
this logo...

dom: excellent question: some people would like to different colors
for the logo; I think we released some ones in with other color
schemes. We could release several logos with different sizes,
colors, formats, etc.
... we can still amend the document to put in other logos.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group would like there to be multiple
representations of the One MobileOK logo, including a version
suitable for small screens.

<JonathanJ> I suggest to change: in Chater 3, "use the mobileOK��
Basic logo as linked" to "use the mobileOK�� logo as linked"

<dom> good point, JonathanJ

dom: Need to decide how we want to use the logo to promote mobileOK.

manrique: How does this relate to checker?

dom: You would prove to the W3C passed the checker and the W3C would
allow you to use the logo.

francois: How about an SVG version so you could scale it to any
size.

dka: Hasn't MarieClaire done some logos?
... Lots of people I talk to want to make sure the logo will fit on
a small screen.

<Zakim> jo, you wanted to note ref the proposed resolution that the
license advises that the logo should not be used on mobile pages

jo: The license contains the terms that you should not use it on
small screens. Need to be clear on how we want to use it.

dka: Don't think the license should address where the logo should be
displayed.
... my point wasn't where the logo should appear--just that a small
version of the logo should exist.

ed: I think Chaals made that point that a favicon should exist for
the logo.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group requests that the MobileOK
License document not include language on whether or not to use it on
a mobile device.

jo: Need to insert a note about this into the Scheme document.
Should make sure that you only put the logo on the pages that are
mobileOK.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group requests that the MobileOK
License document not include language on whether or not to use the
logo on a mobile device.

RESOLUTION: The group requests that the MobileOK License document
not include language on whether or not to use the logo on a mobile
device.

<jo> [my earlier point was that the presence of the mobileOK logo
may alter the mobileOKness of the document]

MarieClaire: [Talking about mobileOK logo] Will have a small one
(16x16).

dka: Is there an SVG version of the logo?

<JonathanJ> Do we need the international version of mobileOK license
document ? (multi-language ?)

MarieClaire: Yes.

dka: The license document should include a link to the logos.

dom: Regarding Jonathan's point, legal documents are not translated.
It could be translated, but the "real" one is the English one.

Time for lunch.

<edm> ISSUE-250?

<trackbot> ISSUE-250 -- The mobileOK License -- OPEN

<trackbot>
[37]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/250

[37] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/250

<edm> scribe: edm

<scribe> scribenick: edm2z

<dom> ScribeNick: edm

dka: we need to revisit the checker licensing issue when the checker
is ready

jo: ...at some point in time
... the license needs to refer to A valid mobileOK checker
... we have not resolved on what basis the checker is a checker

dka: also need to look at items e/ and f/ of issue-250

jo: mobileOk claims would be made without any proof that would
support the claims...
... ... we need to make sure that checker license is worded
consistently

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: use of the mobileOK logo is a sign that
there is a claim (or statement) that the URI (when resolved in the
manner described in ...) will, from the start of the claim, forward
in time (to some specified? point) yield a representation than
passes mobileOK basic tests

dom: we should refrain from making any assertions about the duration
of a claim

jo: mobileOk claim must be some forward looking statemnt or else
would be meaningless
... ...has to have some level of assurance that the claim would
remain valid for certain period of time

dom: section 3 of the mobileOk license states that the mobileOk
string is to be used to make clains of conformance to the MOK Basic
Tests 1.0 concerning a specific page...

jo: we need to be clear when the logo should/could be used and the
link between the claim and the checker

<dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we remain silent on the duration of claim
and leaves that to judges to decide based on when/how the claim was
made

jo: use of the MOK logo is not necessarily a claim

dom: MOK logo could be used only when bound to an URI

<dom> ACTION: Dom to get back to rigo on updating the mobileOK
license [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-799 - Get back to rigo on updating the
mobileOK license [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-06-25].

francois: relationship between the checker and the MOK claims is
already spelled out in the license

jo: we should clarify that each MOK test should be passed separately

<dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the checker is only a way to be
comfortable that you're not breeching the license terms, but doesn't
serve as a proof

dka: now that we are done talking about license terms, lets talk
about MobileOK Scheme

mobileOK Scheme

[39]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/
080408.html

[39]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/080408.html

Kai: notes that references to MobileOk pro may need to be removed

<jo> ACTION: Jo to remove references to mobileOK Pro in the mobileOK
Basic Tests Document [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-800 - Remove references to mobileOK Pro in
the mobileOK Basic Tests Document [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-06-25].

<rob> Scribe: rob

<scribe> ScribeNick: rob

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Keep the name of mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0
the same

francois: need to remove reference to MobileOK Pro if we're not
keeping it as a document

<Zakim> manrique, you wanted to keep mobileOK Basic as Basic, since
it checks a small set of BP

jo: we can keep mobileOK Basic tests, because they are only tests of
a subset of mobileOK!

manrique: exactly, the Checker only verifies a subset

jo: my concern on the Trustmark doc is that the use-cases and
requirements shouldn't be in here

dka: somebody needs to remove a lot of stuff, turning it into a
wrapper doc for the other docs about mobileOK (about 1/4 of current
length)
... i can be the editor

jo: Chaals has volunteered to edit, he just needs the feedback

kai: also could reference POWDER

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be
reduced to a "wrapper" document which will consist of pointers to
MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, the
checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER if
appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER]. The
document won't talk about certification.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be
reduced to an explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of
pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0,
the checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER
if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER]. The
document won't talk about certification.

kai: is this doc becomming a "primer"?

dka: no, a primer would have more prose than we want here

jo: purpose is to show where everything you want to know about
mobileOK is

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be
reduced to an explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of
pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0,
the Checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER
if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER]. The
document will remain silent on certification.

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be
reduced to an explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of
pointers to MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0,
the Checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER
if appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER] (and
maybe a nice little picture). The document will remain silent on
certification.

<DKA> +1

<francois> +1

<jo> +1

RESOLUTION: the MobileOK Scheme document should be reduced to an
explanatory "wrapper" document which will consist of pointers to
MobileOK Basic Tests 1.0, Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, the
Checker, the license rules and the logo usage page [and POWDER if
appropriate based on a future decision on use of POWDER] (and maybe
a nice little picture). The document will remain silent on
certification.

jo: Dan, please convey our thanks to Chaals and convey our review
feedback to him

<jo> ACTION: Dan to thanks Chaals for producing the draft of mok
scheme, to apologise on the group's behalf for not responding sooner
and to draw his attention to the resolution taken on its contents
[recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-801 - Thanks Chaals for producing the
draft of mok scheme, to apologise on the group's behalf for not
responding sooner and to draw his attention to the resolution taken
on its contents [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2008-06-25].

Report from Korean task-force

<JonathanJ>
[42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0052.htm
l

[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/0052.html

<JonathanJ>
[43]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/att-0052
/03._BP-KoreanTF-report-v1.0.pdf

[43]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jun/att-0052/03._BP-KoreanTF-report-v1.0.pdf

<JonathanJ> this is my report file

<DKA> Korean TF Proposal:
[44]http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_18gg7zjk57

[44] http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddkw3489_18gg7zjk57

<edm> Gap analysis
[45]http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dhpvgnmn_53c7h2stfp&hl=ko

[45] http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dhpvgnmn_53c7h2stfp&hl=ko

<edm> TF meeting minutes
[46]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-korean-minutes.html

[46] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/08-korean-minutes.html

<edm> ...and [47]http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-korean-minutes.html

[47] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-korean-minutes.html

JonathanJ: trying to have TF meetings bi-weekly

<edm> TF Roadmap: Requirements documents by the end of December
2008...

<edm> ...and Report documents by the end of December 2008.

jo: thanks for the clear TF report

dka: are all the Korean companies in the TF officially members of
the W3C WG?

JonathanJ: yes

dka: Good, because they will need to rejoin the WG when we change
our charter

francois: there are participants from NHN and TTA that are not WG
members?

JonathanJ: they are W3C MWI participants but not BPWG members

<jo> ACTION: francois to follow up on status of Korean TF members in
respect of W3C and WG membership [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-802 - Follow up on status of Korean TF
members in respect of W3C and WG membership [on François Daoust -
due 2008-06-25].

dka: they need to be wither BPWG members or Invited Experts so that
the patent policy is tight

jo: suggest we don't do Issues and Actions today

dom: but everybody please look at your actions!!!

francois: when you've done your action, change the status to
"Pending Review"

jo: last 2 items on today's agenda don't apply if we are
rechartering.

POWDER update

kai: recent email from Phil - documents on-track
... to go into last-call at the end of the month
... rather than going through the doc details, any questions?

jo: will there be delays in review?

kai: don't anticipate delays because they have been well reviewed
already

dom: you have to show implementations, do you know if there are any
yet?

kai: several planned but none existing yet
... we had some very large changes very late so documents have to be
finished before any implementations can be successful

dom: BPWG took a resolution in Boston to use POWDER

jo: don't we need to publish a vocabulary document?

kai: yes, it's a very small document, Phil is the editor

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will not have a separate mobileOK
powder vocab document, its proposed contents will form part of the
mobileOK scheme document.

<jo> +1

<dom> +1

<Kai_> +1

<DKA> +1

RESOLUTION: We will not have a separate mobileOK powder vocab
document, its proposed contents will form part of the mobileOK
scheme document.

jo: well done so far!

Aspirational Level of mobileOK

<Kai_> ACTION: Kai to get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil
Archer [recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-803 - Get the definitive mobileOK example
from Phil Archer [on Kai Scheppe - due 2008-06-25].

dka: this is about having a mobileOK club - ie what can we do to
promote the idea beyond the logo on compliant sites
... we've already talked about having the logo outside of web-pages
today

jo: what about "I aspire to be mobileOK soon"?

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Drop the idea of an aspirational level of
mobileOK, it seems to be included in the current understanding of
mobileOK logo usage rules

<jo> +1

<dom> +1

<DKA> +1

dka: nothing prevents us all blogging about it a lot!

<abel> +1

RESOLUTION: Drop the idea of an aspirational level of mobileOK, it
seems to be included in the current understanding of mobileOK logo
usage rules

jo: AOB?

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: BPWG Thanks W3C very much for its kind
hospitality in hosting this F2F meeting

<DKA> +1

<SeanP> +1

<jo> +1

<manrique> +1

RESOLUTION: BPWG Thanks W3C very much for its kind hospitality in
hosting this F2F meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Adam to check on availability of data about the number
of acceptable links in a focus-based browser [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: dan to contact BBC to see if they can make their
mobile web site mobileOK [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Dan to thanks Chaals for producing the draft of mok
scheme, to apologise on the group's behalf for not responding sooner
and to draw his attention to the resolution taken on its contents
[recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Dom to get back to rigo on updating the mobileOK
license [recorded in
[53]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: francois to follow up on status of Korean TF members
in respect of W3C and WG membership [recorded in
[54]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to remove references to mobileOK Pro in the
mobileOK Basic Tests Document [recorded in
[55]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Kai to get the definitive mobileOK example from Phil
Archer [recorded in
[56]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Kai to work proposed changes into the mobileOK Pro
document and then turn it over to the group [recorded in
[57]http://www.w3.org/2008/06/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

[End of minutes]

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 13:52:07 UTC