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

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

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:55:48 +0100
Message-ID: <FF6AD6C11AA23F4F9866E9A3C57602ED046B8A@QEO00217.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: "public-bpwg" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Well, that was in part what I was asking yesterday.

As Dom set it up, the evaluation are limited to whatever is suitable.  I
think that is fine, but gives the complete set of evaluations a somewhat
irregular feel.

Overall I think that is acceptable, because a regular feel would be more
appropriate for a rigid test structure.

-- Kai 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:51 PM
> To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Cc: public-bpwg
> Subject: Re: A few more evaluation procedures for addendum to 
> BP (ACTION-872)
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 7 November 2008 10:56:31 UTC

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