- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:56:05 +0000
- To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote: > Summary of mobileOK Pro F2F in London: > > Without much ado, here is a summary (from memory, since I don't have any > minutes at the moment) See: http://www.w3.org/2008/02/05-bpwg-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2008/02/06-bpwg-minutes.html > what was done and agreed upon.... > > Item: Concerns from Jo, Sean, Dom regarding the existance of the group > Jo was kind enough to join us on Wednesday and we addressed the various > points with him in the meeting. > 1) legitimization of the TF > Discussion about this was tabled as views changed. Once there was great > support, now there is less. However, it remains for the TF to > demonstrate that it will do the work in time, which seems to be the main > concern > 2) implementation experience of mobileOK Basic needed for mobileOK Pro > This was accepted as a possibility, but the TF strongly suggests that in > the absence of existing mobileOK Pro all discussion about this point is > moot. If there is no interest in the public in general, then mobileOK > Pro may whither away, but at the moment neither positive nor negative > claims can be made. > 3) lack of consumer pull for mobileOK Pro > see 2) > 4) potential lack of meaning of self-certified compliance to mobileOK > Pro > A claim will remain a claim, until certified. This has been the nature > of mobileOK and will remain so. > Furthermore, the educational approach of mobileOK still exists where > BPWG hopes to enlighten the public that there are better ways to build > mobile friendly sites. mobileOK Pro is essential in that. > Lastly, the tests are designed to offer bracketing, when needed, to aid > in coming to the right test results. As was point out by Sean many > times, just having people adhere to mobileOK Basic would be a great > step. > The same goes for mobileOK Pro. If people even think about and consider > their actions in light of mobileOK Pro, much will be helped. > 5) points which have been dropped from WCAG and which may have > similarities with mobileOK Pro. > Alan will come back to the group with information where this may be > relevant > > > Item: Milestones > By Feb 21: > - submission more detailed charter > - submission 1st draft of mobileOK Pro Tests > - request for issue of 1st public working draft of mobileOK Pro Tests > > Next F2F March 19 > - reworking with feedback from group and public > > June > - LC in June > - CR End of June > > > Item: mobileOK Pro Tests > - We went through all tests, save one which we simply didn't get to. > - the document will be edited on Googledocs and is already being > modified as we speak (task is to reexamine the tests and flesh out > details) > - TODO: Reexamination of the mobileOK Basic Tests for partial coverage > of BPs, followed by creation of additional Pro Tests if needed > > > Item: Notes to BPWG and Open issues > - We have identified several points we wish to communicate to the WG > about some of the BP, especially for consideration BP 2.0 > > > > > Kai > > > -- Phil Archer Chief Technical Officer, Family Online Safety Institute w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 15:56:40 UTC