- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:42:50 +0100
- To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Hi,
Minutes of today's call:
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html
... pasted as text below.
François.
31 Jan 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0103.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Jason, francois, jo, adam, abel, nacho, miguel, DKA, Dom,
SeanP, Kai, martinJ, Ed_Mitukiewicz, achuter, kemp
Regrets
Robert_Finean, srowen, yeliz, Murari, Bryan, Magnus,
hgerlach, Kai, drooks, Daniel_Schutzer, PhilA, AlanT,
Shahriar
Chair
Jo
Scribe
Dom, francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]mobileOK Pro TF
2. [6]Good Standing status
3. [7]Korea F2F
4. [8]Zaragoza Update
5. [9]BPWG blog
6. [10]mobileOK
7. [11]Objects in mobileOK
8. [12]Content Transformation Task Force
9. [13]Checker Task force
10. [14]mobile accessibility
11. [15]BP2
12. [16]Cannes F2F
* [17]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
mobileOK Pro TF
Kai proposed charter for the mobileoK TF
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.htm
l
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.html
Jo: 3 issues: TF leader, charter, and meeting next week
... Kai, you're volunteering as TF leader, right?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Kai is mobileOK Pro TF Leader
Kai: yes, thought that's what was already the case
<jo> RESOLUTION: Kai is mobileOK Pro TF Leader
ACTION-612?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-612 -- Kai Scheppe to write a charter for
mobileOK Pro TF by January -- due 2008-01-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/612
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/612
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.htm
l
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.html
Kai: we want to make the tests repeatable
... I proposed a format for that, which people in Boston said was OK
Jo: there were several comments:
... the TF should refine its scope - which seems reasonable
Kai: and is part of the charter proposal
Jo: regarding changes to mobileOK basic, I would be reluctant to
this
Kai: we don't intend to change mobileOK basic, but while reviewing
it to integrate them in pro, we may find problems with them
Jo: dom raised a question on how much extension is intended
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0050.htm
l Dom's position
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0050.html
Jo: it would be useful that the scope of work answer these questions
Kai: that sounds reasonable, indeed
... and this should help restrict the amount of work we're targeting
Jo: that's a concern that many share, I think
... this relates to another comment that was made: we have 9 months
left in our charter, which seems pretty limited for such a work
... also, it's not clear whether the TF is also doing in mobileOK
scheme and labels
Kai: our intent from what I understand is that we'll only focus on
mobileOK Pro tests
Jo: another point I made is that mobileOK basic is a pre-requirement
to mobileOK Pro
... and we don't have that many sites that are mobileOK basic at
this time
... so if this concerns only ~200 people in the world, the cost of
the WG to review and approve the mobileOK pro work needs to be taken
into account
... as SeanO pointed by mail
Kai: I agree that we don't know about popularity
... we asked whether this was worthwhile to continue and everybody
said yes
... I'm not sure why we're continuing this discussion
Jo: what I would be propose is to approve the charter, but asking
the TF gets back to the group after the F2F
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to suggest a short TF charter
<inserted> ScribeNick: francois
dom: first thing, I don't think everybody was OK in Boston going
forward in MobileOK
... more problematically, I think the TF should have a chance to
show that mobileOK Pro is feasible, useful and needed
... what I would suggest to answer the concerns is that we give the
TF a short charter of 1 month or 2
... with the goal to produce a Scope document
Kai: sure, but I'm getting a bit frustrated about the reputation of
this, I thought I had all the green lights...
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with
the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and
those from srowen) will be elaborated for WG for confirmation of the
charter and continuation of the TF
Dom: I don't want you to get frustrated, but it took us a lot of
time to do mobileOK Basic
... and afraid it might take a lot of time
Kai: Well, it depends...
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with
the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and
those from srowen) will be elaborated in a more complete charter for
review by the WG to confirm the TF continuation in 2 weeks
Kai: the challenge lies in setting brackets in the human tests we're
adding to the mobileOK basic
Dom: I don't want to go in technical details but the fact that
mobileOK took 1 year and a half shows it might be hard.
... If you can show us it can be done, my point remains mobileOK Pro
was decided 18 months ago and there's no draft yet
<inserted> ScribeNick: dom
DKA: I think we're covering grounds that will be discussed next week
... let's see what the TF gets to propose on this
Jo: that's why I'm proposing to approve the charter, and ask the TF
to get back to us
DKA: +1 to that resolution
<scribe> ACTION: Jo to summarize all the points that needs answers
from mobileOK Pro TF [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-635 - Summarize all the points that
needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-02-07].
<francois> i/dom: first thing, I would suggest/ScribeNick: francois
<jo> (15:19:35) Jo: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to
proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to
ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated in a more
complete charter for review by the WG to confirm the TF continuation
in 2 weeks
+1 to the resolution
<francois> +1
<jo> RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso
that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from
srowen) will be elaborated in a more complete charter for review by
the WG to confirm the TF continuation in 2 weeks
Good Standing status
Francois: we have switched a few participants of the group to "not
in good standing" as decided
... let me know if you find any mistake
... it has already helped us clean the list of participants
... it seems to be working well
<francois> [23]Good Standing Tracker
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/GoodStandingTracker.html
Korea F2F
Jo: BPWG meeting is on Mon and Tue, UWA on Tue and Thu, and DD on
Thu and Fri
... on Wed, there will be a workshop-like day with the korean mobile
web forum
<francois> [24]Logistics for Seoul
[24] http://www.w3c.or.kr/venue-200803/
Zaragoza Update
Nacho: the person in charge of the organization wasn't available
this week - I should have more news on this by Monday
... and will forward that to the group list
BPWG blog
Francois: we're planning to upgrade the BPWG blog template
... it currently is pretty ugly and not mobileOK
... I'm working on revamping it
mobileOK
<francois> dom: Sure, we had a call with Marie-Claire, trying to see
how to move forward with the deplyment of mobileOK basic and make
sure it's a success story
<francois> ... I guess main decision was to make a better plan which
I agreed to address
Objects in mobileOK
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/
[25] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/results.php
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/results.php
<inserted> ScribeNick: Francois
Dom: I wrote a set of 4 test cases, the goal being to record how the
browsers of the wild world interact with objects
... we have 13 records
... when the type attribute is set and set to something that the
browser doesn't recognize, it won't try to download the resource
... with the noticeable exception of Opera and a few others
... I made sure the tests reported what I wanted ;)
... My taste is that we enough tests
... I have no idea what a good sample would be, so I would say we
have one!
... We have enough proof that there's enough browsers that are not
dumb about these objects.
<dom> [27]Call for tests
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0096.html
Jo: do the test, people, please!
<dom> ScribeNick: dom
Content Transformation Task Force
<inserted> ScribeNick: dom
Francois: we're making progress
... I've just had a long discussion with Yves Lafon, our HTTP expert
... will send a report of that discussion by email
Checker Task force
Jo: beta release is imminent
... I think the group needs to approve this
<francois> ScribeNick: francois
<scribe> ScribeNick: dom
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: I wonder what criteria we want to set, esp. whether
we need to decide now what the exit criteria for beta is
<francois> ScribeNick: francois
dom: the beta is imminent. We have managed to do many good progress.
It's much more complete than the alpha.
... In terms of entry and exit criteria:
... * entry: all of a mobileOK is covered, but it has not all be
tested
... * exit from the beta: needs to be decided by the group, but
could be decided when the beta is out
... This also relates to the on-going work on the mobileOK test
suite
... It should not delay the beta
<nacho> btw, CTIC is going to drop the first version of the Dev
Manual this weekend to the TF mailing list
<inserted> ScribeNick: dom
Jo: nacho, what's your point of view on going to beta?
... do you think we need to be sure that all tests are covered?
Nacho: I think we should release it to the public together with the
developer manual
... maybe we need another chapter on the testing part
Jo: any other view about going to beta?
... if nobody objects to it,
... and if nobody thinks that we should have a formal testing before
going to beta
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Checker TF may declare beta when it thinks
it is ready
<nacho> +1
Jo: I propose we mandate the TF to make the decision to move to beta
itself
<adam> +1
+1
<francois> +1
<jo> RESOLUTION: Checker TF may declare beta when it thinks it is
ready
<achuter> +1
<abel_> 1+
mobile accessibility
Jo: we have time for more points than the ones you specifically
raised
AlanC: I sent a list of specific points in my mail
... has anyone looked at those?
Jo: I have
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0102.htm
l
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0102.html
<achuter>
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080129/mwbp-wcag20.html#ACCESS_KEYS
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080129/mwbp-wcag20.html#ACCESS_KEYS
Alan: for each BP, I try to explain how a given BP can help making a
page more accessible
... although I'm not sure this group can have much input on that
aspect
Jo: generally, it's more on the mapping from WCAG 2 to BP that this
group can comment on
... but it would be good to review the document in a step by step
way
... clearly we won't have many technical comments on that part, but
we still have to review it
... I don't have much comments on this, except some editorial ones
that I'll send offline
Alan: [presenting autorefresh]
Jo: a note that in BP, we only ask to be able to stop it
... the 2 guidelines don't completely overlap, so you basically need
to do both to conform to WCAG and BP
Alan: I propose that we get a look at the document going the other
way
Jo: maybe we should actually go through all the BPs now
Alan: good idea
... AVOID_FREE_TEXT can be useful for accessibility, but doesn't
help directly for WCAG conformance
Jo: maybe the similar BPs should be grouped (e.g. AVOID_FREE_TEXT
and MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKE), or have a "related" section under the
relevant BP
Alan: I don't think the group will be able to comment on the WCAG2
conformance...
Jo: moving on BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY
Alan: not covered in WCAG, but it ought to be
Adam: I think the WCAG document is more stringent on this than BP,
isn't it?
Alan: WCAG is much more detailed and sophisticated given how much
expertise and time they've spent on it
... but it's not always more stringent
Adam: it would be useful to say how much increment you would need to
add to get WCAG conformant (?)
Jo: it sounds reading the document that applying the BPs don't you
help so much
... we may want to be careful of the impression it gives, which may
be counterproductive
Alan: the first BPs don't have much relevance, but the ones further
down do
Jo: maybe we need to revisit the order in which we present them :)
Alan: BALANCE is another example of something that help, but isn't
included in WCAG because too vague
... same for CENTRAL_MEANING
... CLARITY (which was in WCAG 1.0) was replaced by a reading-level
guideline for the same reason
Jo: it would be useful to explain what "innate reading level " means
beforehand
Alan: it relates to "age", roughly speaking
Jo: I think you might want to link to an explanation from the phrase
in the 1st paragraph
Alan: COLOR_CONTRAST is rather similar to the WCAG 1.0 CP, but with
a different reasoning for it
... to meet WCAG 2.0, you need to be a bit more careful than what
the BP says
Jo: you use both "color vision deficiency" and "color vision
deficit": are they meant to mean the same thing? If so, might be
worth using a single phrase
Alan: I'm not sure, that's a good point; I'll check it up
Jo: same for other phrases of this type (e.g. "low vision", ...)
... for people that are not expert in the field, it really helps to
use the same terminology as much as possible
Alan: another point: WCAG 2.0 has an algorithm for detecting proper
contrast, which may not be appropriate for BP
Jo: we had that originally, but dropped it for some reasons
Alan: the algorithm might be worth including in BP 2.0
Jo: it could actually be a useful input to the mobileOK Pro TF
... it is more generally speaking that mobileOK Pro will change the
picture of this document quite dramatically
Alan: indeed
Jo: so let's use this as input to the Pro meeting next week - as
you're going there
... it could be an interesting perspective for mobileOK Pro to see
how much we could change some of the "possibly" to "yes", and some
"not at all" to "possibly"
Adam: going the other way, we could look at what was dropped from
WCAG 1.0 to 2.0 and sees if this is a sign for something likely
difficult to test?
Jo: that's very likely, indeed
Alan: CONTROL_LABELLING was in WCAG 1.0, but was moved as a part of
4.1.2 in WCAG 2.0
... so it isn't sufficient
... idem for CONTROL_POSITION
Jo: ERROR_MESSAGES helps accessibility-wise, but doesn't give you
WCAG points
Alan: IMAGE_MAPS is no added_benefit
Jo: when we move BP from PR to REC, can we take into account some of
the comments from Alan?
<francois> dom: I think it's editorial, so it shouldn't blow out
anything, but need to check before I can say something
<francois> Alan: the relation is not wrong, but not very helpful
Jo: when you say "When image maps are not delivered", you mean when
they are not present in the document, right?
Alan: right
Jo: moving on LINK_TARGET_ID, this one actually helps compliant!
... we need to move it up at the top of the list :)
... What do you think about rearranging the order to first the ones
that say "yes", then the "partial", and then the ones that help but
don't give you WCAG
Alan: currently they are in alphabetical order
... but the intro text make a per BP list depending on the level
targeted
Jo: let's stop here, and start again from MEASURES on the next call
BP2
Jo: Bryan isn't on the call
... we still haven't received much input on what can be put in the
document
... we have an open issue on this
... please put some thoughts on this
ISSUE-229?
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-229 -- Scope of mobile web applications best
practices -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229
Jo: it is essential that we have a list of references as starting
point
... only suggestion so far comes from the Center for the Handheld
Web
Cannes F2F
Francois: we'll be welcome there, but it is a bit early to request a
slot there
Jo: we'll have the usual haggling about overlap between groups, but
we can do among chairs and team
ACTION-630?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-630 -- François Daoust to check with organizers
of the TPAC in France in October 2008 -- due 2008-01-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng>
[31]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/630
[31] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/630
close ACTION-630
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-630 Check with organizers of the TPAC in France
in October 2008 closed
<edm> bye
<abel_> bye
Jo: thanks Alan for leading us through the document
<jo> thanks Dom for scribing!
<jo> d/haggling/discussion/
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to summarize all the points that needs answers from
mobileOK Pro TF [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.133
([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2008/01/31 16:40:48 $
[33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 16:43:10 UTC