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: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:11:58 +0100
Message-ID: <48C8E0DE.7020601@mtld.mobi>
To: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi Kai

In general I like your text and thinks it takes things significantly 
forward. However, I have a slightly different perspective.

a) mobileOK Basic Tests are both machine testable and also intended only 
for the DDC (though, that said (SM), there are tests that are 
universally applicable too - but we make no distinction in mobileOK 
Basic Tests between the two)

b) Each best practice has an associated "what to test" that is not 
limited to the DDC

c) Much water has flowed under the bridge since the text of the BPs was 
carved into stone (at PR stage) [that's enough analogies and mixed 
metaphors for now, ed.] and there are some areas that require 
clarification, and some aspects of the tests in that document that 
require review and amplification.


We should take the opportunity to a) make the clarifications to the best 
practices themselves (some useful ones already in the addendum - plus 
some others such as the stuff on keeping page title short) and b) to 
clarify the tests in general whether or not they are machine oriented, 
and make sure that they have _general_ not just DDC applicability. While 
we are about it we might choose to also comment on which of the mobileOK 
Basic Tests are more generally applicable than the DDC and which might 
be parameterised to become so.

I think that there is a lot of good material in the document as it 
stands. I think also that repurposing it will require quite significant 
structural changes.

I am willing to offer my time to make some of those changes if we all 
find the above approach agreeable. [however, have also unwisely 
committed to undoing the mess I made of Phil's effort on mobileOK 
Scheme, and also have the small matter of the CT Guidelines (or whatever 
they end up being called tomorrow].


"That Said" is a Service Mark of the bard of Ipswich and is used under 

On 04/09/2008 16:53, Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote:
> Hi,
> I was asked to provide extra text for the addendum to put it into the
> correct context.
> I believe I have come up with a way of doing so.
> As the Basic Tests document builds upon the Best Practices document, so
> does the addendum.  It however focusses on different parts of the Best
> Practices.
> If you read this and then the document itself, it will make more sense.
> The follwing information will apply to several issues and one action.
> ISSUE-272 a new name
> Suggested title for the addendum:
> "Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 - Addendum: Tests requiring human
> interaction"
> ISSUE-273 for which document?
> This also clear up for which document this addendum is intended...the BP
> document.
> 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...
> The Mobile Web Initiative's Best Practices Working Group set out to
> create guidelines which help content authors to create better mobile
> friendly content.
> Such content will display more easily on mobile devices, from the
> simplest web capable handheld, to the most sophisticated smart phone,
> thereby accelerating the convergence of handheld and desk-bound content
> worlds.
> The group's efforts resulted, among others, in the creation of two main
> documents.  
> "Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 - Basic Guidelines" outlines the best
> practices which should be followed to create mobile friendly web
> content.
> "mobileOK Basic 1.0 Tests" tests the implementations of those best
> practices, but is limited to maschine testable aspects.
> The limitation to machine tests removes ambiguity and allows a clear cut
> detemination of whether content is "mobileOK".
> "mobileOK" is a claim which content authors can make and even annouce
> this visually and maschine readable on the page in question.
> There are many aspects of best practices the adherence to which must be
> evaluated by a human being.
> This introduces a great deal of subjectivity.
> Different people may have different opinions about the quality or degree
> to which a given best practice has been adhered to.
> Therefore "Addendum: Tests requiring human interaction" is held in a
> similar format as "mobileOK Basic 1.0 Tests".
> It provides a means to evaluate the adherence to the best practices
> where "mobileOK Basic 1.0 Tests" cannot make deterministic statements.
> 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.
> Please do give feedback either on this or the addendum itself.
> -- Kai
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 09:12:46 UTC

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