- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:35:15 +0200
- To: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of the BPWG teleconference today are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html
and copied as text below.
The call focused on defining the next steps for our set of working
documents, esp. Mobile Web Application BP, the accessibility document,
the addendum to BP 1 - the CT guidelines having been discussed during
the CT Task Force meeting [1].
Dom
1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Sep/0003.html
Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
04 Sep 2008
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Sep/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
Bryan_Sullivan, DKA, DaveRooks, Kai, Pontus, SeanP, achuter,
dom, jeffs, jo, jsmanrique, miguel
Regrets
Francois, Rob, Abel, Heiko, Ignacio, Yeliz, Ed, Scott
Chair
DKA
Scribe
jo
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Status of SIgn Up to New Group
2. [6]F2F Agenda for Mandelieu
3. [7]CT Task FOrce
4. [8]Checker Task FOrce
5. [9]BP 1.5
6. [10]BP 2.0
7. [11]Accessibility - coordination etc.
8. [12]mobileOK
* [13]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<dstorey> I'm 3/4s reading...trying to get wikipedia to fix a broken
handheld stylesheet
<dom> Agenda:
[14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Sep/0000.htm
l
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Sep/0000.html
Status of SIgn Up to New Group
<dom> [15]http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/37584/discrepancies
[15] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/37584/discrepancies
dom: Reminders went out over the weekend, if you have not been
nominated by 13 Spet you will be kicked out of the working group
... so those in the link above need to ping their ac reps
dka: how many outstanding?
dom: before re-chartering we had 33 member orgs, but now we only
have 11, so we have 22 missing
dka: ugh
dom: in a certain number of cases this is for people that have not
been active - anyway I expect this will sort itself out
dka: make sure you don't miss out on member benefits!
<jeffs> suggestion for F2F: Mobile Web for Social Development
Interest Group is nowup and running (I am member), & F2F happening
at TPAC... do we want to see if there are mutually supportive things
can be done??
F2F Agenda for Mandelieu
dka: I sent a link to a "list of goals" in the agenda
... I would just like to run through those goals and see what people
think and have other to contribute
... jo and I thought that we wanted to have a substantial discussion
on CT and move to second last call
... ref accessibility we want to have everything done and dusted,
and possibly a joint session with EOWG
... ref BP2 we want to have discussion leading to a last call
... that is a bit tentative but we do need to move along and I want
to make this the focus of the meeting
... for BP 1.5 we need to move this to a draft
... we want to hear from the the Korean Task force and understand
the Gap Analysis document that they are working on, but not sure
what Korean plans are for attending
<dom> [16]MWBP registrants at TPAC
[16] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2008/registrants#mwbp
dka: we should have a POWDER presentation from Phil
<dom> [Jonathan Jeon and Kangchan Lee will be there]
dka: and a joint session with EO, as discussed, and with the Webapps
people on Widgets - we need to establish that a mobile widget needs
to be conformant with BP (2.0)
... so we need an agreement on how we can reference their work
and/or vice-versa
<jeffs> suggestion for F2F: Mobile Web for Social Development
Interest Group is now up and running (I am member), & F2F happening
at TPAC... do we want to see if there are mutually supportive things
can be done??
dka: and the other thing is having a BP Dinner on Monday night
dom: may be we need a session with the TAG ref ISSUE-222
... could spend time on MobileOK Scheme, but a lesser goal than the
others
<jeffs> suggestion for F2F: Mobile Web for Social Development
Interest Group is now up and running (I am member), & F2F happening
at TPAC... do we want to see if there are mutually supportive things
can be done??
<jeffs> Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org is MW4D contact
dka: right jeffs, maybe we could have a presentation from Stephane?
<jeffs> would you like to contact steph? or me?
dom: yes makes sense to see if there is useful input, and I will ask
him
<dom> ACTION: Dom to contact Stéphane to see if he is interested in
presenting MW4D to BPWG at TPAC [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-835 - Contact Stéphane to see if he is
interested in presenting MW4D to BPWG at TPAC [on Dominique
Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-09-11].
jo: nothing further to add
dka: so we'll come back with a concrete agenda, and Dom, any
suggestions for a venue for Monday night?
<dom> ACTION: Dom to look into a restaurant for Monday night at TPAC
- due 2008-10-01 [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-836 - look into a restaurant for Monday
night at TPAC [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-10-01].
dka: but contrary to Jo's wishes we might have to go back tot he
pizza place at Mandelieu and it is where we first made the Wikipedia
entry onMobile Web (from a mobile phone)
CT Task FOrce
jo: had meeting this week and are starting to address lc comments
Checker Task FOrce
miguel: No specific news from us
BP 1.5
dka: how does it feel for you Kai?
kai: we are waiting for feedback from the group
... as I mentioned last time
<Kai>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/dra
fts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080731
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20080731
dka: shall we discuss this a bit more than we did last time, like
what changes have gone in since last f2f
kai: no that would be futile, people just need to read it,
dom: I did look at the format and it looks OK, might need minor
tweaks to make pubrules compliant
... the real work is in turning it into the addendum rather than
mobileOK pro as it is today
dka: so what is that work then
<Kai> How about mobileOK Basic Tests Addendum?
dka: right now it looks more like an addendum to the Basic Tests and
I am struggling with what we'd need to do to turn it into the
addendum we need
... don't we need an awful lot more text and explanatory verbiage
(sic)
kai: I think it is an addendum to the test doc
... we even ahve a preface saying that these are the human testable
bits
<dom> "Testing Mobile Web Best Practices"?
kai: we could do these tests as an addendum, and we could add "why
will you want to do this"
<jeffs> agree, from "Abstract": "This document outlines a set of
tests requiring human evaluation"
kai: that is the only thing that is really needed to make that
happen
<jeffs> seems to me useful to make addendum to tests as it is the
part that requires human intervention
jo: well we did say that it would be re-purposed as an addendum to
BP 1 but it would probably be just as useful if we said its an
addendum to mobileOK and less work
dka: well, yes, that's what I am saying
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to say we need someone to lead the work
<Kai> how about "mobileOK Basic Tests - with human intervention"
<jeffs> +1
dom: I think that as a title we should have testing mobile web best
practices
... the scope is very different to mobileOK
... not sure if Kai is available to do this
... at the moment we don't have anyone responsible so I don't see it
moving forward
dka: what?
dom: what I said is that we need an editor who makes a proposal for
how to move forward
dka: that is Kai surely?
dom: well Kai said he's done but if he is able to move it forward?
dka: kai suggested some text so why don't we do that and move
forward
kai: I can make the changes but I have been beating my head on a
brick wall and it won't move forward without group input
... I can provide text for the new context but I need guidance on
what to do
... need directed feedback and I will implement that
<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding BP 1.5 - new document title is
"Additional Tests for Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0".
<jeffs> suggestion: add to title "Requiring Human Intervention"??
dom: I can understand your frustration at the lack of feedback ...
from my perspective the current draft is a long way from what we
discussed in June, which is an addendum discussing further testing
on BP
... I'd expect a bit more proposals on the new title and a bit more
re-organisation
kai: the document was completely re-worked as a result of your
feedback
<dom> [The sections "Note to BPWG:" need to disappear]
kai: made lots of suggestions but we need to decide on it
... no decisions made at sofia on what I was supposed to do, I will
do the work if I am told what to do
<jeffs> want me to read through this weekend and email suggestions
for text-content?? (not another issue pls <grin/>)
dom: one of the things I would have expected is an ISSUE on the new
title and we need to have a discussion on it - independent of review
kai: that seems less important to me than discussion of the content
<jeffs> Abstract seems to establish scope: "This document outlines a
set of tests requiring human evaluation"... am I wrong?
<Kai> ISSUE: What is the new name of document, currently called
"mobileOK Pro Tests Version 1", which is supposed to be an addendum
to the Best Practices document, to be?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-272 - What is the new name of document,
currently called \"mobileOK Pro Tests Version 1\", which is supposed
to be an addendum to the Best Practices document, to be? ; please
complete additional details at
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/272/edit .
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/272/edit
<jeffs> given what the abstract says, how about establishing "human
intervention req'd" as the scope??
<Kai> ISSUE: Is the mobileOK Pro Tests document supposed to be an
addendum to the Best Practices document or to the Basic Tests
document?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-273 - Is the mobileOK Pro Tests document
supposed to be an addendum to the Best Practices document or to the
Basic Tests document? ; please complete additional details at
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/273/edit .
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/273/edit
jo: I think that before we do anything else we need to make sure
that we have precised its purpose and that we make sure we are clear
whether we are doing "a useful clarifications on BP 1.0" or a "here
are some handy tests" the former is what I thought we agreed in
Sophia
<Kai> ISSUE: Which texts are missing from the addendum that are
needed to turn it into an addendum?
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-274 - Which texts are missing from the
addendum that are needed to turn it into an addendum? ; please
complete additional details at
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/274/edit .
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/274/edit
dka: think that the bits on "what's additional" needs to be
separated from "what to test"
<jeffs> given what the abstract says, how about establishing "human
intervention req'd" as the scope??
dka: material that is clarification of BP 1.0 can be pulled out into
a separate section, if we did that it would make it a lot mroe
coherent
s/mrow/more/
kai: we set out to fill the gaps and provide human tests,
dka: I am not referring to human vs computer
... in BP 1.0 there are sections that say "what to test"
... we don't need to emphasize the human vs, machine tests
achuter: if this is an addendum to the best practices then ...
[sorry missed it]
<achuter> the tests would cover the BP 1.0 and the addendum
<Kai> achuter: then the basic tests will be the tests and the
addendum?
dka: anything in BP 1.5 that is not a test can be pulled out as a
clarification on BP 1.0 - everything else can remain as a set of
additional tests which can be considered as addenda to the "how to
test it" bit in BP 1.0
kai: there are some sections in there - we tried to provide
bracketing so that people running different tests would come up with
the same answers - like how many links on the same page - that can
certainly be pulled out as additional information
... so the test bit is sometimes quite intuitive and clear and I am
not sure it helps to pull that out,
... notes to bp, limitations of the tests, interpretation of the
best practices, differences to mobileOK basic tests, procedures and
examples, not sure if this is useful as every bp is covered
comprehensively
jo: need to move on
... suggest first step is to make sure we agree with content, then
decide whether to move it around
dka: need some actions, need specific things to make sure people
review
<dom> [well, it's not exactly how to apply the BP to improve their
content, but how to check whether they indeed apply the BP, isn't
it?]
kai: think we just need to add some explanatory text that heps
people understand that this will help them make better content
dka: if we get no feedback by next week we take a resultion to
publish as a draft
kai: I will take an action to write explanatory text and see how we
like it
BP 2.0
dka: adam is not on call, bryan, any comment on status
<Kai> ACTION: Kai to provide explanatory text for the addendum which
will put the document (mobileOK Pro Tests 1) in the correct context
and explain to the audience that it is intended to aid content
authors in creating still better content. [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-837 - Provide explanatory text for the
addendum which will put the document (mobileOK Pro Tests 1) in the
correct context and explain to the audience that it is intended to
aid content authors in creating still better content. [on Kai
Scheppe - due 2008-09-11].
bryan: current draft has a number of areas where further input is
requested - not clear what adn why we are looking for some of the
feedback
<dom> [24]MWABP
[24] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-mwabp-20080729/
bryan: been reviewing and there are some things I'd like to put back
from what was in earlier drafts
... think that some of the input was already there but has been
removed
... useful doc and developing well, but I'd like to see it get back
to a degree of detail and contextual rationale in the the interests
of being terse but I don't know that serves the reader or the
developers who will read it
dka: partly as a result of your not being at last F2F, perhaps there
can be an editorial workshop between now and next F2F
bryan: yes an editorial conference call would be useful (note that I
will not be in Cannes)
dka: maybe we can do a video link?
bryan: [c is for] conference call, that's good enough for me
dka: I will take an action to organise an editorial meeting
... yada yada I am so busy, um,
... week after next
bryan: we need to consider also the response from Webapps to our
contribution on Widget requirements and so we may need to fill that
gap in our document
dka: we need to nail down where the gap is between what they are
doing and what is needed
... think they are looking at mobile first
bryan: specifically they are not addressing capability negotiation
and disclosure - we did a bunch of stuff in DDWG which is being
ignored
... basically they are ignoring the need for content adaptation
technologies
<dom> [I think the WebApps WG is focusing on *packaging* of Widgets,
not any deeper than that at this time]
bryan: which is fine so long as you are looking at closed client
server like applications, rather than open web
... so either we need to deal with it or we need to convince them
that they need to put it into their requirements
<dom> [well, maybe not...]
dka: we need to make the input
bryan: we did so and it was rejected
dka: well maybe we need to get back to them
jo: we did discuss this last week, we decided at that point that we
had made our contribution and that we had probably done enough
dka: well if bryan takes an action, then maybe we would have more to
discuss with them
<scribe> ACTION: Bryan to summarise points to take back to the
WebApps group [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-838 - Summarise points to take back to the
WebApps group [on Bryan Sullivan - due 2008-09-11].
<scribe> ACTION: Dan to arrange BP 2.0 editorial meeting to fit in
with his hectic globe trotting schedule [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-839 - Arrange BP 2.0 editorial meeting to
fit in with his hectic globe trotting schedule [on Daniel Appelquist
- due 2008-09-11].
bryan: I kind of agree with Jo that the best way to address this
might be for us just to add the material to our stuff
dka: I am a bit worried that we don't really want to dive to deeply
into widget specific stuff
Accessibility - coordination etc.
achuter: the mapping document has been dragging on for a long time
and been through lots of versions - feedback has finished so there
is not much else to do
<achuter>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080901/Overview.html
[27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080901/Overview.html
achuter: I'd like someone to check it, but have checked it myself
<achuter>
[28]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/d
rafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080901/together.html
[28] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080901/together.html
achuter: I think we can sign it off as there not being anything else
we can do, needs more work on the WCAG side, but the section
references may change and may need review on publication of WCAG 2.0
... there is also a question about what to do about the document
referring to what to do if you want to do WCAG 2 and BP - whether to
leave it as it or to make an empty document
dka: don't we need another draft before we put it into limbo
achuter: no major changes some minor stuff
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to talk about mobileOK
dom: no comments
... both groups just need to publish the douments as a group note.
that's all
achuter: just need to agree to resolve the "doing both" issue
... but think it is stable as is
<dom>
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Sep/0004.htm
l
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Sep/0004.html
dka: we'll try to take that resolution next week
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to talk about mobileOK
mobileOK
dom: late last call comment from WSC on mobileOK which we need to
respond to and integrate into the document
... also next step for mobileOK basic is to wait to complete
implementation report for Google to become mobileOK basic
conformant.
... so should we revisit the decision to wait or should we go ahead
dka: think it would be better to have google quoted
dom: to clarify fd has been working with them, and I think we should
time-box waiting any longer
dka: let's wait for fd to get back and make a decision next week
once he has feedback
<dom> ACTION: Dom to work with francois on getting a schedule on
getting google.com mobileOK basic [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-840 - Work with francois on getting a
schedule on getting google.com mobileOK basic [on Dominique
Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-09-11].
<dom> [31]comment https in mobileOK from WSC WG
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-comments/2008JulSep/0137.html
<dom> [yoohoo, another editors version of mobileOK coming!]
jo: don't have objection to the WSC wording which I agree is more
accurate
<scribe> ACTION: JO to review WSC comment and propose new wording
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-841 - Review WSC comment and propose new
wording [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-09-11].
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Bryan to summarise points to take back to the WebApps
group [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Dan to arrange BP 2.0 editorial meeting to fit in with
his hectic globe trotting schedule [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Dom to contact Stéphane to see if he is interested in
presenting MW4D to BPWG at TPAC [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Dom to look into a restaurant for Monday night at TPAC
- due 2008-10-01 [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Dom to work with francois on getting a schedule on
getting google.com mobileOK basic [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: JO to review WSC comment and propose new wording
[recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Kai to provide explanatory text for the addendum which
will put the document (mobileOK Pro Tests 1) in the correct context
and explain to the audience that it is intended to aid content
authors in creating still better content. [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/04-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 15:36:32 UTC