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

[minutes] Thursday September 4 teleconf

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:35:15 +0200
To: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1220542515.19890.85.camel@localhost>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:52 UTC