[minutes] Thursday 13 February 2008 Teleconf


The minutes for today's call are available at:
.... and, for Tracker, the mail search engine, and all of us who love
unreadable pages of ASCII text, copied as text below.


        Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

13 Mar 2008


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0032.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-irc


          MartinJ, jo, miguel, Dom, Sean_Owen, abel, Kai, Phil_Archer,
          Ed_Mitukiewicz, drooks, yeliz, SeanP, Bryan_Sullivan,
          achuter, DKA

          AlanT, Shah, Heiko, kemp, Magnus, Nacho, Jeff, Tony, Jason,
          Robert, Adam, Francois, Chaals, Murari




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Seoul F2F Briefing
         2. [6]June / October F2F Updates
         3. [7]BP2
         4. [8]MMA Advertizing guidelines
         5. [9]Content transformation Task force report
         6. [10]mobileOK basic checker Task Force
         7. [11]mobileOK Pro Task Force
         8. [12]Accessibility document
         9. [13]mobileOK basic stats, mobileOK basic test suite
     * [14]Summary of Action Items

   jo: first is feedback from Seoul

Seoul F2F Briefing

   <jo> [15]Seoul Briefing

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0027.html

   jo: francois assembled a summary, above, and we got a lot of work

   mostly focused on transformation guidelines

   put out a new draft just before the call -- still many editor's

   made substantial progress of BP2

   <dom> [16]Updated editors draft of CT guidelines

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313

   jo: anyone have specific questions about seoul briefing?

   we also had a successful Wednesday workshop with Korean community,
   very productive

   have not communicated message about mobileOK and DDC

   it seems to have been misunderstood

   the place to do it may be mobileOK Scheme, which chaals has
   volunteered to drive

June / October F2F Updates

   jo: zaragoza venue is off, due to difficulties coordinating a venue

   will move to a different location, but keep the date

   Dom's offered to host at Sophia-Antipolis at W3C offices

   dom: won't have definite answer before tomorrow

   if anyone else has a proposed location, please do

   needs to be in Europe this time

   jo: anyone on call have comments, offers related to the June F2F?

   Kai: as a backup, we could do it in Darmstadt, could probably
   arrange a few rooms

   no visits to the european space agency this time :)

   jo: thanks Kai

   dom: need to make up our mind on date of meeting

   early in the week or late in the week, joint meeting with other

   jo: no strong preferences; DDWG will be out of charter by then


     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0002.html

   jo: will return to OMA advertising guidelines later


   <dom> [18]Latest BP2 editors draft

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080305

   Bryan: latest version is ...
   ... the March 5 revision, yes

   captures revisions from Seoul, and other items I picked up on in the

   general editorial cleanup, etc.

   need to review changes to external references

   expect to have a new draft before the next call

   jo: anything to notice here?

   <dom> [19]Diff Since Feb 13 version

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080213&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080305

   Bryan: easier to use now. Added text about convergence, multiple
   views, multiple devices

   can anyone define the top-left navigation problem for me?

   difference between transport and application compression
   techniques... something I picked up on...

   there are implications to best practice techniques

   jo: Kai, the top-left nav problem was your issue from BP1?

   Kai: yes, the issue is just that you don't want to be confronted
   with navigation immediately, but rather content you want

   how to get around this? not sure there is an answer. It is a

   jo: why is this different from BP1?

   Kai: covered in the sense that we said, put in a nav bar, but not
   sure that was a sophisticated solution

   jo: does that answer your issue Bryan?

   first screen needs to be more than just navigation?

   Bryan: sites should present a balance of navigation and content -- I
   get the general idea

   is this a problem where we can recommend "how to do it"

   we should avoid naming problems without prescribing solutions

   <srowen:> +1 to that

   Bryan: I can draft "stay away from" suggestions, if that's a good

   Kai: don't we risk running up against a paradigm that is hard to

   simply hard to get around

   until we have content adaptation, not much we can do

   jo: first step is for bryan to be able to write a clearer
   placeholder, then we action someone to write a more complete BP

   Bryan: I have enough understanding to write a placeholder

   jo: I note contributions from yeliz et al. on AJAX...

   <srowen:> years of practice

   yeliz: ... and contributions on ARIA (sp?)
   ... this came up in education/outreach meeting, because now WCAG
   recommends it

   maybe useful to BP2, just soliciting opinions

   jo: can we action someone to look through and recommend what is

   yeliz: I can do it

   <dom> ACTION: yeliz to review ARIA to see what could be relevant to
   BP2 [recorded in

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-712 - Review ARIA to see what could be
   relevant to BP2 [on Yeliz Yesilada - due 2008-03-20].

   jo: jonathan's contribution is fairly big

   who's an AJAX expert that can review?

   <srowen:> I am inclined to volunteer Adam

   Bryan: haven't had a chance to review this, but have reviewed AJAX
   resources in general

   <dom> ACTION: Owen to review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do
   so [recorded in

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-713 - Review the AJAX contribution or
   ask Adam to do so [on Sean Owen - due 2008-03-20].

   srowen: I'll take an action to ask Adam about the AJAX doc, or else
   review myself

   Bryan: would like people to look at current draft, particularly
   highlighted sections

   jo: anything else on BP2?

MMA Advertizing guidelines

   jo: next, MMA mobile ad guidelines

   dom: MMA has contacted us for feedback on guidelines

   Sean and Jo noted some issues/questions

   jo: anyone else have feedback?
   ... sean you were amenable?

   srowen: yes no major conflicts, or even modest ones

   <dom> [22]Sean's comments on MMA guidelines

     [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0018.html

   jo: just the PNG issue, right

   <Kai> I glanced at it and didn't see anything bad, but couldn't go
   much in depth on it.

   <dom> [23]Jo's comments on MMA guidelines

     [23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0019.html

   Bryan: looks valuable. the reference to WAP1/2, while historical, is
   still somewhat necessary

   maybe we can find a different way to refer to

   but in principle people know what WAP means

   wouldn't propose to remove it

   jo: maybe note that WAP2 is "a" term for the web, not a primary term

   in the european draft, there were references to BPs and mobileOK

   they don't appear in the good practices section

   we could ask them to be restored

   the reference is still at the end of the doc, but missing from the
   middle of the document

   jo: dom how much more do we need to do on this?

   dom: happy to "push the button"

   would like someone to draft the response

   jo: I will draft it

   <dom> ACTION: Jo to draft review of MMA Advertising [recorded in

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-714 - Draft review of MMA Advertising
   [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-20].

   srowen: I suggested a few new practices for the MMA doc:

   The clickthrough should result in at most one redirect before the

   reaches the landing page.

   "Crush" PNG and GIF images to reduce size as much as possible.

   Make the ads *non* cacheable on the assumption that they are

   viewed once and rotated, so it would waste cache space.

   anyone interested in it?

   dom: they may or may not be interested, but sure, can send those

   jo: will weave this in along with a suggestion to reference
   mobileOK, BP

   we should welcome *global* guidelines from the MMA

   jo: time for reports from task forces

Content transformation Task force report

   jo: Content Transformation TF made lots of progress at the F2F

   many sections are awaiting contribution

   otherwise document continues to evolve

   any questions?

mobileOK basic checker Task Force

   srowen: a steady stream of enhancements and fixes

   <dom> [25]Dom's analysis on HTML validity

     [25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Mar/0015.html

   now is the time to review the code, output

   jo: how about that DTD issue?

   yes, unable to validate some docs according to stated doctype, per
   mobielOK, like HTML 4

   jo: this entails a change to mobileOK if we can't implement it

   srowen: could treat it as a known issue

   dom: HTML 4 docs will be invalid as HTML 4, or XHTML MP, so it
   doesn't really change the scope of mobileOK to add/remove test

   jo: we do have other doc changes anyway

   dom: as an aside, have these changes been integrated into a new

   srowen: no

   jo: let's raise as an issue to bookmark it

   dom: will raise the issue

   <inserted> <dom> ISSUE-240 created

   srowen: note, we'll always encounter docs that can't be validated --
   unknown DTD

   so to what extent do we need an exception for HTML 4?

   jo: let's discuss in an ISSUE

   Kai: we're not dealing with HTML 4 docs in the first place...?

   jo: let's discuss in an ISSUE

   may wish to liaise with Korea, to communicate that now is the time
   to review the mobileOK implementation

mobileOK Pro Task Force

   jo: time for mobileOK Pro TF

   Kai: in waiting mode

   <jo> ACTION: jo to point out to Korean members the time frames
   remaining on checker [recorded in

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-715 - Point out to Korean members the
   time frames remaining on checker [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-20].

   will need to discuss subjective nature of tests, as we have before

   may need to change tests to be more objective, testable

   but won't be able to get around this entirely

   can't expect a "checker"

   because this is specifically the tests that can't be machine

   jo: lots of "trains in the station" right now but yes we need to get
   on with this

   my concern is that accessibility folks have been through this, with
   changes between WCAG1 and WCAG2

   should this be turned over to WCAG to comment on problems of

   achuter: WCAG is probably too busy right now

   jo: alan, are you happy with the level of subjectivity?

   achuter: no, people will take advantage of subjectivity

   srowen: WCAG / accessibility is required by law in some cases, not
   mobileOK Pro

   so incentive to engage the standard, but low-ball it, is not as big
   an issue

   jo: true, but may become a contractual requirement in some cases,
   and that's desirable

   Kai: we're interested in making testers come up with the same answer
   as much as possible

   yes, no legal requirement, so this may not be as vital an issue for
   mobileOK Pro

   is it not enough to just say that if a reputable tester certifies
   mobileOK Pro compliance, isn't that enough?

   <Zakim> dom, you wanted to say that if mobileOK Pro is going to be
   useful, it needs to be credible and consistent

   dom: two independent testers with mobileOK Pro doc and a website
   need to come up with the same answer, otherwise mobileOK Pro means

   W3C Advisory Board warned about subjectivity problem from the outset

   we need to have a good story on this point

   PhilA: this is where POWDER helps

   <dom> [27]Advisory Board comments on subjectivity

     [27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2006Aug/0182.html

   what this overlooks is that an individual (content provider, etc.)
   claims conformance

   the question reduces to whether you trust the tester's judgment

   I think it's OK that two people may come up with different answers

   POWDER helps you sort out which answer you believe

   <Zakim> dom, you wanted to say that mobileOK Pro will then heavily
   reduce the value of the mobileOK brand

   jo: I follow the logic, but your average Joe doesn't know the
   difference between reputable and bad testers, does this not punt the

   dom: contracts might specify "tester X says you are mobileOK Pro"

   this might restrict the usability of mobileOK Pro

   and reduces value, brand

   we have a pretty good story on mobileOK Basic, pretty clear idea

   means passing the checker

   afraid this extra complexity in mobileOK Pro may harm the brand

   <Zakim> Kai, you wanted to ask how the brand would be devalued if
   somebody claims mobileOK Pro, but may, in some testers view, fail on
   a point or two? Is that then less or more valuable

   Kai: understand the point about devaluing the brand, but this isn't

   someone's gone to the trouble of submitting content to testing,

   two tester may disagree, usually on a small point

   <Zakim> PhilA, you wanted to draw an analogy

   PhilA: don't think Dom and I will agree on this

   some subjective assessments have value -- Academy Awards, etc.

   <dom> (subjectivity through a central authority is ok, indeed)

   guidelines and examples can lead people to roughly the same
   conclusion, even if it's not deterministic

   dom: yes, if a central authority exists, this is not a problem

   but Dom's Academy Awards, for example, wouldn't be of much use

   if we have multiple assessments from multiple authorities, it
   confuses the mark

   jo: let's take this to the list

   Kai: if we decide this must be a very steadfast result, what effect
   does that have on BPs?

   then that implies they have no value

   we can say all we want about what it takes to be mobileOK Pro, but
   you're saying that if it's untestable, it's useless

   then why are we writing the BPs?

   dom: didn't mean "worthless", but referring to problems with the

   Kai: need to look at potential effects on BPs as a whole

   PhilA: if we don't define mobileOK Pro, somebody else will, so
   should be the W3C

   <dom> (I think I could buy the idea of having a set of "BP reference
   tests", if we don't call it mobileOK Pro)

   <jo> ACTION: Archer to summarise discussion on Pro subjectivity and
   to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the subject
   [recorded in

   <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-716 - Summarise discussion on Pro
   subjectivity and to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on
   the subject [on Phil Archer - due 2008-03-20].

   <PhilA> OK

   jo: latest draft of accessibilitiy document is next

Accessibility document

   <dom> [29]Updated editors draft of BP-WCAG doc

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080305/

   achuter: last week, new draft was published

   <dom> [30]Changelog

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/changelog.html

   an incremental update

   no major changes to point out or discuss -- work is progressing

   jo: yeliz made some contributions

   yeliz: version 1 document is almost complete and sent to Alan last
   week, for incorporation

   already incorporated

   jo: any other comments on these drafts?
   ... we have only reviewed one doc so far, in short

   any other business to discuss?

mobileOK basic stats, mobileOK basic test suite

   dom: we collected some stats on mobileOK checker


     [31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0009.html

   shows why pages fail

   that is worth having a look at


     [32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html

   also, mobileOK Basic checker test suite, which shows which test
   cases are currently passing and why

   it is evidence that the checker is implementing mobileOK Basic

   jo: Those statistics were pretty interesting

   wondering what level of conclusion we can draw from it

   dom: surprised in number of valid pages with XHTML Basic DTD

   in XHTML 1.0 you can use lang attribute, but need to use xml:lang in
   XHTML Basic

   source of many failures

   maybe DTD validation isn't the best way to ensure quality markup

   maybe an issue for mobileOK Basic 2.0

   jo: maybe water under the bridge -- difficult to "undo" that

   will this be an obstacle to adoption, if people are failing for
   trivial reasons?

   dom: 4-5% of sites are mobileOK Basic

   some more fail with only one error

   jo: some selection bias -- people using the checker are already
   interested in conformance

   <srowen:> will point out that mobileOK Basic is, in retrospect,
   definitely in no sense "too easy"

   jo: not sure quite how to address this

   dom can you give periodic updates on these statistics?

   dom: can't promise, but can probably get them again at some point

   jo: will probably need to proceed with 1.0 as is

   Kai: I do keep getting feedback on things that can't be fulfilled
   because of marketing, etc. requirements

   yes, DTD validation is not sufficient

   <srowen:> think the question is whether it is necessary, not

   Kai: the tables issue keeps coming up

   hard to not use tables

   <Kai> Validation is a good thing, just not a statement that you are
   looking at good markup

   srowen: the issue on DTDs is whether the XHTML Basic spec is
   specifying too much trivial stuff -- clearly it is useful to require

   <jo> [thanks Sean for scribing]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Archer to summarise discussion on Pro subjectivity and
   to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the subject
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Jo to draft review of MMA Advertising [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: jo to point out to Korean members the time frames
   remaining on checker [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Owen to review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do
   so [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: yeliz to review ARIA to see what could be relevant to
   BP2 [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 16:30:16 UTC