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

MobileOK Tests (was [agenda] Agenda for BPWG Call 2008-02-07)

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:29:00 +0100
Message-ID: <79cab0900802080429j6f362d0cp3b541419f058c19e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

During and following the F2F the other day I have been reflecting on
what we are trying to do and whether it is worthwhile and achievable
(as discussed the first day with Jo). Supposedly the basic tests are
the most important, although apart from saying "basic steps" should
have been taken, the document seems to dodge discussing the basis for
selecting the BPs to test. Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems to me
that what was selected was a set of tests to suit the checker not the
needs of the user.

Now with Pro we are saying that Basic is not sufficient and that a
human tester is needed to test for what will give an adequate
experience. This is reasonable, but even with a manual operator I
don't believe that all the BPs can be tested. For example:

* TESTING (Determine whether the content was tested with a real device
not an emulator)
* LIMITED (Determine what the user requested; What user? When?)
* ERROR_MESSAGES (Discover all error messages a site can produce)

These are not ambiguous or unquantifiable, but simply unknowable. I
think we need to accept that some BPs can not be tested, but not be
put off by this but simply exclude them. We then have three classes of
BP:

* Checker-friendly
* Human testable
* Not testable

This may seem obvious but it didn't seem to be so the other day. The
first two together can still produce a useful label, while the third
type are useful even if they can't be tested. what is unfortunate is
that there has been an implicit prioritising of the BPs on the basis
of their suitability for the checker which it's perhaps time to
examine again before doing the same on the basis of human testability.

best regards,

Alan





On 07/02/2008, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de> 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) 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
>
>
>


-- 
Alan Chuter,
Senior Web Accessibility Consultant, Technosite (www.technosite.es)
Researcher, Inredis Project (www.inredis.es/)
Email: achuter@technosite.es
Alternative email: achuter.technosite@yahoo.com
Blogs: www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 12:29:09 UTC

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