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 12:07:14 +0100
Message-ID: <48C8FBE2.4090706@mtld.mobi>
To: manrique.lopez@fundacionctic.org
CC: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, public-bpwg@w3.org

Comments below

Best
Jo

On 11/09/2008 10:06, Manrique Lopez wrote:
> Hi,
...

>> 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?
Yes

> - What do I need to do to get "mobileOK" logo in my page?
This should be discussed in the document mobileOK Scheme, coming your 
way real soon now.

> 
> 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
> we?

We've discussed this in detail in the past. My take on those discussions 
is that we concluded that although being mobileOK is (to quote) "only 
the first step", nonetheless it is a significant step and moves the 
market in the right direction.

> 
> 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.
At the moment the checker links to the BPs I think, which I view as 
being a bit of a disconnect. I think that the idea of the report linking 
to relevant material is of course a good one and agree that this is one 
of the documents it should ultimately link to.

> 
> 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.

Again, we did discuss this in the past and the conclusion was that a 
mobileOK claim meant that you passed all the tests no more no less. The 
nature of passing mobileOK Tests is that a URI *is capable* of being 
rendered in a manner that passes the tests. i.e. it's not specifically 
the "page" but the URI that is the subject of the test.


I agree that there could be scope for other claims in the future, but 
first things first in my view.

> 
> 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.
> 

I agree - per my previous suggestion on this thread I think that the 
document could usefully identify which tests can be parameterised to 
become relevant to non DDC UAs. However, I don't know that actually 
specifying values for device classes and indeed specifying what those 
device classes are is something we can reasonably undertake in the time 
we have.

> 
>> 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:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-pro/2008Jun/0005.html
> 
> That's what I've tried...
> 
> Best regards,
> 
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 11:08:01 UTC

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