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

Re: A few more evaluation procedures for addendum to BP (ACTION-872)

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:17:15 +0000
Message-ID: <491334AB.506@mtld.mobi>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Oh, and I am wondering if we need an additional optional section:

Variation on mobileOK Basic Tests

e.g. to explain that the 20k limit is for the DDC and that it is often 
good practice to go beyond this for more advanced devices

Jo

On 06/11/2008 17:50, Jo Rabin wrote:
> I think this looks fine, but I am wondering which sections we are 
> limiting the document to - I assume that we mean
> 
> Relevant Device Properties
> Additional Interpretation of the Best Practices
> Evaluation Procedure (not Test)
> Examples
> 
> Only "Evaluation procedure" being mandatory, though I'd have thought 
> that Examples would generally be useful?
> 
> Jo
> 
> On 21/10/2008 15:45, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I took an action item earlier today to provide a rewrite of a few more
>> tests for the addendum to BP (aka BP 1.5), which I have done and
>> inserted in Kai's latest draft, and published at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20081021.html 
>>
>>
>> The relevant part is at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20081021.html#access_keys 
>>
>>
>> I have rewritten access keys, auto refresh, avoid free text, background
>> image readability, balance, with the following changes:
>>  * used a more compact format, removing the empty "notes to bpwg" and
>> co,
>>  * added a "relevant device properties" item at the top of the list, in
>> the light of our discussions on the relation of these evaluations
>> procedures with the DDC
>>  * reworded avoid free text, background image, and balance to recast
>> them as evaluation procedure rather than tests
>>
>> (I probably would have substantive comments on some of these, but I
>> tried to keep my changes editorial for the time being)
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Dom
>>
>>
>>
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 18:18:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:59 UTC