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

mobileOK Pro f2f meeting summary (was Re: [agenda] Agenda for BPWG Call 2008-02-07)

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:56:05 +0000
Message-ID: <47AB2A15.3050203@icra.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:55 UTC