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

Re: ACTION-837 - Provide explanatory text for the addendum... ?ISSUE-272 a new name ISSUE-273 for which document? ISSUE-274 which texts ?are needed?

From: Manrique Lopez <manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:06:06 +0200
To: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1221123966.6374.16.camel@bespin>


> ISSUE-272 a new name
> Suggested title for the addendum:
> "Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 - Addendum: Tests requiring human
> interaction"

+1 to this

> ISSUE-273 for which document?
> This also clear up for which document this addendum is intended...the BP
> document.

And it should appear as a link when a page gets a valid "mobileOK Basic"
report. Something like saying: "Ok, you have done the basic tasks, but
you can go beyond"

> ISSUE-274 which texts are needed?
> I believe the following text is all that is needed to turn this into an
> addendum.
> ACTION-837 - Provide explanatory text for the addendum...
> This document is non-normative and is provided for informational
> purposes only.  The reader and content author is encouraged to follow
> the advice give as it will further improve the content created.
> Adherence to these tests does not impinge upon or otherwise influence
> the right to claim that content is mobileOK.  
> For that claim the "mobileOK Basic 1.0 Tests" must be passed.
> However authors are free to inform the public if they, in their own
> view, also fulfill the tests outlined in the addendum.

After reading the explanatory text, specially this final part, I still
have some questions:
- If a page passes "mobileOK Basic 1.0 Tests", is it a "mobileOK" page?
- What do I need to do to get "mobileOK" logo in my page?

If these questions are not answered clearly, they could make the
addendum useless. If there is "only One mobileOK" and "mobileOK Basic
1.0 Tests" give developers the right to claim that content is mobileOK,
some developers could take the minimal steps to get the "mobileOK" logo
in their site. And, if "mobileOK Basic 1.0 Tests" are those "minimal
steps", those tests would be their only care. And we don't want that, do

So, somehow, the addendum should be linked to "mobileOK Basic checker"
report, to make clear that there is "one more thing" to do after passing
the basic tests.

Another idea, if the author claims that the site is "mobileOK" it must
pass mobileOK Basic 1.0 tests and must indicate (using POWDER for
example?) which Best Practices covered by the addendum tests is
following. Ok, maybe it is too complex but passing the basic tests and
saying that none of the addendum tests are followed, you would get
"mobileOK" (same than now?) but pages that pass some of addendum tests
would be "more" mobileOK, and a "mobile search engine" could use this
index for results.

Some tests need values (as 30 links in BALANCE), but these values could
be relative (for me, 30 links in a mobile site when I am using a
smartphone are not as bad as using my simple mobile phone). So,
following previous idea, these limit values could be indicated somehow
in the POWDER description.

> Please do give feedback either on this or the addendum itself.

I would like to remember that sometime ago, some comments were made
about the tests themselves and it seems that none of that comments were
discussed or taken into consideration:


That's what I've tried...

Best regards,

José Manrique López de la Fuente <manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org>
Área de Tecnología Fundación CTIC
Web: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Tel: (+34) 984 29 12 12
Parque Científico Tecnológico de Gijón
Edificio Centros Tecnológicos
Cabueñes s/n
#Antes de imprimir este e-mail piense bien si es necesario hacerlo: El
medioambiente es cosa de todos.
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 09:06:46 UTC

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