W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > June 2008

[minutes] BPWG F2F in Sophia, day 3

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

    <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 to BP 1.

    <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/clarification/explanatory text to BP
    1.

    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.

    <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/clarification/explanatory text to BP
    1, closing the gap between BP1 and BP2.

    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.

    <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/clarification/explanatory text to BP
    1, closing the gap between BP1 and BP2. Also publish an 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.

    <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/clarification/explanatory text to BP
    1, closing the gap between BP1 and BP2 (and linked to from the BP1
    Errata document).

    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 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 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.

    <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.

    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

    +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

    +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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 June 2008 13:52:08 GMT