- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:28:49 +0100
- To: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes for today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html
.... and, for Tracker, the mail search engine, and all of us who love
unreadable pages of ASCII text, copied as text below.
Dom
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13 Mar 2008
[2]Agenda
[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
Attendees
Present
MartinJ, jo, miguel, Dom, Sean_Owen, abel, Kai, Phil_Archer,
Ed_Mitukiewicz, drooks, yeliz, SeanP, Bryan_Sullivan,
achuter, DKA
Regrets
AlanT, Shah, Heiko, kemp, Magnus, Nacho, Jeff, Tony, Jason,
Robert, Adam, Francois, Chaals, Murari
Chair
Jo
Scribe
srowen
Contents
* [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
done
mostly focused on transformation guidelines
put out a new draft just before the call -- still many editor's
notes
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
groups?
jo: no strong preferences; DDWG will be out of charter by then
<dom>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0002.htm
l
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0002.html
jo: will return to OMA advertising guidelines later
BP2
<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
meeting
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
paradigm
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
start
Kai: don't we risk running up against a paradigm that is hard to
'break'?
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
relevant?
yeliz: I can do it
<dom> ACTION: yeliz to review ARIA to see what could be relevant to
BP2 [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<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
[21]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<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
XHTML-on-a-small-screen
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
[24]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<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
user
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
generally
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
over
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
draft?
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
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<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
"checked"
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
subjectivity?
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
little
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
problem?
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
black-and-white
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
brand
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
[28]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<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
<dom>
[31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0009.htm
l
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0009.html
shows why pages fail
that is worth having a look at
<dom>
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.htm
l
[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
decision
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
sufficient
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
validitiy
<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
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Jo to draft review of MMA Advertising [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: jo to point out to Korean members the time frames
remaining on checker [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Owen to review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do
so [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: yeliz to review ARIA to see what could be relevant to
BP2 [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 16:30:16 UTC