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: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:15:43 +0200
Message-ID: <398533C370C23441981074C456AA3BDD031DBAA4@QEO00226.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Cc: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Hi Jo,

Thanks for your input...

> 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)

I am not quite sure which point you are making.
Only that the "Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 - Addendum: Tests requiring
human interaction" is not machine testable, but does require a DDC.
> b) Each best practice has an associated "what to test" that 
> is not limited to the DDC

The entire document has been set up a based on the Best Practices and
the resulting Basic Tests.
The assumption is that the same rules apply, i.e. the UA is the DDC.

Perhaps this needs to be explicitly stated.

> 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.
> Therefore:
> 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 would be very cautious here.  The main document is the BP document.
If we have learned and need corrections then those should go into a new
version of the BP document.

The Addendum specifically deals with human interactive tests and is, in
my mind, not the correct place to put in potentially substantial changes
to the main document. 

> 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.

What do you propose and why?
If the addendum is another test document, which it is, then I am not
sure a structural change is warranted.
If it is, by definition, we must reconsider the BP document as well.

The issue of subjectivity and inability to make binary decisions over
the outcome of the test, has no bearing on its structure.

Beyond that I certainly have to change the references to mobileOK Pro
once we have decided on a name.

> 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].

Thank you for the offer, but let's discuss this to see if changes are

-- Kai
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 15:16:29 UTC

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