Re: Are We Done Yet? [Was: Re: Minutes - Coremob 2012 is "final"]

Interjecting in this dialogue, for a moment

Re

> Anyhow, it appears to me the Goals in the charter have been met and thedeliverables are complete. As such, when is this CG going to close?


As I mentioned in my summary of the meeting [1]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2013Jan/0046.html

> The setting up of a W3C Central Test Initiative (name tbc, afaik) has a direct impact on our work plans, and indeed on our charter. As I mentioned on the call, I'm in discussion with W3C about some changes that we should make to reflect this extremely positive development. I'm hoping that we have some conclusions in not too many weeks. 
> 
> I would particularly like to hear the views of the members of this group as input to the current discussions on next steps for Coremob, I'd welcome discussion on this topic either on list - or off list if you'd prefer to email me directly. 

To re-iterate, I'm really interested in hearing people's views on what, if anything, the CG should move on to do

Here are some of my views:

The group has been successful in delivering a first edition Use Case/Requirement/Spec compendium, deliberately named "Coremob 2012" to reflect the point in time nature of the deliverable. Congratulations to us in so doing.

Congratulations to us also in moving thinking along in several important ways. I'm going to claim a small amount of credit, for example, in our having highlighted the need for a consistent test running infrastructure that serves a range of requirements. I'm delighted that this has now moved to a focus area of its own because that makes tremendous sense. It would make no sense for us to continue to plan to design and build a test running in the presence of that so from that perspective our work is done in that aspect of our charter. I think there is broad consensus on the view that writing of tests is best co-ordinted within that framework.

However a job remains to be done in representing a view as to what tests should be written first. Also, one of the main points that emerges from our Coremob-2012 document is that not only are test suites missing but that specs are missing against which to write any such test. So a goal beyond that of noting that tests are needed is to note that specs are needed.

It is suggested by the current charter that a number of deliverables like Coremob-2012 will be produced. In general, given the rapidly evolving nature of the subject area, that makes sense, however it would be good to see our initial input adopted by the relevant WGs and our view of priorities given due consideration. It remains to be seen how that may come about.

The goal of socialising the technology of the Web for Mobile, or better put Multi-Channel or possibly even better put still thinking about how we might get a contextually Responsive Web is not something, in my view, that will happen meaningfully by saying "it's down to the WGs to do it". 

So in my opinion there is a significant job that remains to be done in taking a mobile/cross-platform/contextual view of the whole shooting match. Pointing out what's missing, needs improvement and so on.

As chair, I have no problem with a view that says "job done" in a micro sense. My problem would rather be that the job writ large is very far from done indeed. The next step is to consider whether an agenda elaborated on the themes sketched above is a worthy goal and whether this CG is a good place to do that work.

Like I say, I'm delighted to read this discussion, it would be good to hear more voices.

Jo

On 31 Jan 2013, at 14:31, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com> wrote:

> Hi Art,
> 
> I was just reflecting on the impact that CoreMob 2012 had on our approach to test focus, and pointing to where that specific followup seems to be moving to.
> 
> But the larger question of the value of the CoreMob CG, and should it continue, touches on these ongoing needs, which IMO are unfulfilled and ongoing, e.g. as I indicated in [1].
> 
> 1) Developers need details: CoreMob 2012 took the simplistic approach on feature priorities, of referencing specs as a whole, which is fine for smaller specs but for something like HTML5 with hundreds of discrete features is IMO too broad a brush. We need to really consider Mobile use cases for HTML5 features in detail, to provide realistic/useful guidance to developers about what Mobile Web Apps really need and can use - meaning the state of usability as of 2012 in terms of support by implementations. For example there are several HTML5 features that simply don't work on mobile devices yet. The credibility of the CoreMob effort (and this type of effort overall in W3C) hinges on full disclosure.
> 
> 2) The importance of the Mobile Web App focus is not over: CoreMob 2012 was a first step, which still needs to be validated (thru testing), refined (e.g. as in (1)), and evolved, as Mobile Web Apps are continually breaking into (or have new opportunities to) new feature territory. 
> 
> 3) A globally focused CG of this type is a more effective collaboration and communication tool: W3C needs such a CG to continue this work, otherwise we risk again not serving developers as we rush to our corners of the W3C and create myriad little CGs that developers can't find or follow. We need a central place where market stakeholders can continue to discuss/develop and promote this very important profile of the web.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-coremob/2013Jan/0018.html
> 
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:35 AM
> To: public-coremob@w3.org
> Subject: Are We Done Yet? [Was: Re: Minutes - Coremob 2012 is "final"]
> 
> Reading Bryan's summary of the next steps for testing touches on the 
> more general topic of -> so, what, if anything, remains for this CG.
> 
> The charter identifies three work areas:
> 
> 1. Test suites - it seems to me that if people are interested in OWP 
> testing, the efficient thing to do isto do as Bryan indicates below and 
> contribute directly to the testing efforts already started.
> 
> 2. UCs and Requirements for other groups - with the proliferation of 
> CGs, it's not clear there is a need for an umbrella group like CoreMob. 
> If people want to discuss some technology, they can simply create a CG 
> and go for it. (Good example/model: the work done by Marcos, Mat, et al. 
> in the Responsive Images CG pushing their UCs/Reqs to the HTML WG).
> 
> 3. Specs - the 2012 profile is done. It helped provide input into the 
> W3C's OWP testing effort and apparently provided a good discussion at 
> last year's MWC. But is there really any need for YA profile? If people 
> want to actually make a difference re broad deployment of the OWP spec 
> stack, it seems like it would be more efficient to directly contribute 
> to Webkit and/or Gecko or to lobby your closed browser vendor.
> 
> Anyhow, it appears to me the Goals in the charter have been met and 
> thedeliverables are complete. As such, when is this CG going to close?
> 
> -Thanks, AB
> 
> 
> On 1/30/13 8:49 PM, ext SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>> Hi mobsters,
>> 
>> During the Web Testing meeting this week, I described how we (AT&T) are attempting to follow up to CoreMob 2012 with analysis of the tests supporting verification of CoreMob 2012 conformance, as indicated in CoreMob 2012 as "part of subsequent work of the group". Whether this work remains in CoreMob or shifts to the general Web testing effort in W3C, is TBD, e.g. per the discussion in the Web Testing meeting held yesterday.
>> 
>> Nonetheless, we (AT&T) are moving forward with this assessment and I wanted to let the CoreMob CG know so that the interested members can participate as needed. For now, the continuing work in this vein will be organized on the Web Testing IG list public-test-infra@w3.org, and thru its wiki etc.
>> 
>> As noted in my input to the meeting (http://blsaws.github.com/slides/20130129-WebTesting.html), we intend to use the effort resulting in CoreMob 2012 to shape our test priorities for 2013, e.g. to close the gaps in the available W3C etc tests.  This is in the interest of gaining more specific value from CoreMob 2012 (other than being an aspirational guide to what "mobile web apps need"). Our current approach to this effort is to focus on CoreMob requirements that are (in a test support sense) unmet or under-met (in which we include existing/automatable tests which are currently unautomated).
>> 
>> While one of the goals of the Web testing effort is to avoid us having to individually do the type of spreadsheet-based research that I uploaded to the CoreMob wiki at http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/CoreMob2012_Test_Coverage. But for now that will continue until we have a common place where we can document the results.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Bryan Sullivan
> 
> 
> 
>