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

[minutes] Thursday Sep 18 teleconf

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:27:37 +0200
To: public-bpwg <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1221751657.20742.98.camel@localhost>

Hi,

The minutes of our teleconf today are at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-bpwg-minutes.html
and copied as text below.

We made progress on the "addendum to BP" document with a decision to
make it less formal, and organized an editorial meeting to make progress
on the Mobile Web Application Best Practices.

Dom

        Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

18 Sep 2008

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Sep/0061.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-bpwg-irc

Attendees

   Present
          achuter, Bryan_Sullivan aconnors, jo, dom?, DKA, jeffs,
          Kai_Dietrich, SeanP

   Regrets
          Robert, Francois, Manrique, Heiko, Yeliz, DavidS, Miguel,
          Abel, Geoffrey

   Chair
          DKA

   Scribe
          Kai, Bryan

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Addendum to BP
         2. [6]BP2 status
         3. [7]signups to the group
         4. [8]Content Transformation Guidelines
         5. [9]Accessibility
         6. [10]Issues Cleansing
         7. [11]TPAC Agenda
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Addendum to BP

   <jo> ACTION-837?

   <trackbot> ACTION-837 -- Kai Scheppe 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. -- due
   2008-09-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/837

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/837

   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Sep/0015.htm
   l

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Sep/0015.html

   <jo> ISSUE-272?

   <trackbot> 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? -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/272

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/272

   DKA: Have people been able to read this text

   <scribe> Scribe: Bryan

   Dka: what is current status for text posted by Kai

   Kai: working thru ideas for restructuring possibly into new version
   of BP, it's still open to some degree

   Jo: An addendum could clarify where extra information may be helpful
   re te tests of BP1. The info could be put into the BP without
   reference to the DDC.
   ... Including the text with guidance on parameterizing the test info
   could improve the testability of the human testable ascpects and
   comment on the machine testable aspects.

   dka: So the approach is splitting off the explanations into one
   section and the test details into another, but we need to decide
   what to do with the 3rd i.e. the erratta to mobile OK basic.

   <jo> Three possible purposes in respect of clarifying the BPs: a)
   expand upon any BP text that is not clear, b) clarify and add to the
   human testing bits and 3) expand upon the machine testable bits and
   additionally to comment on parameterization of the DDC related tests
   there (e.g. that the values in mobileOK basic are specific to the
   DDC and using those values on non DDC devices is not...

   <jo> ...necessarily appropriate)

   kai: No sure what we are trying to achieve with splitting off the
   errata type info; with the current focus on human testable aspects
   it may get confused if we split it up and reapply it to the BP

   dka: concerned about extra work without a lot of gain

   kai: we need to focus on the document user, having the info as an
   combined addendum is OK for document use; we also need to make the
   focus on the DDC explicit

   dka: the extra work should be minimal

   kai: still there are open points in the addendum, not sure whether
   it belongs there

   dka: this needs to be ironed out before publication

   kai: there is value in the open notes, as guide on what needs to be
   thought about; there is a lot of information there if we are
   interested in keeping it

   jo: agree that there are many ways forward; grouping under the BP's
   makes sense; not too happy with the idea of this as a
   self-certification test
   ... we should either follow the approach in the BP or in mobile OK
   basic, and not fall in the middle; recommend putting into the form
   of the BP's including removing the pass/fail verbage

   kai: would be OK if we gave "have you considered" guidance in the
   context of each BP?

   jo: that chatting approach is consistent with the BP's

   kai: that would be fairly easy to do
   ... can come up wth an example of the approach before jumping in
   wholly
   ... it will take a couple of weeks

   <DKA> ISSUE-272

   kai: there is the name issue to consider

   dka: we have suggestions from kai and others on the list; we should
   take a resolution on this

   <Kai> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group will accept the document
   "addendum" as long as the wording is toned done from a testlike
   format to a more casual format

   dka: needs to be crispier

   <Kai> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The group will accept the document
   "addendum" as long as the wording is toned done from a testlike
   format to a more casual format, by removing the PASS/FAIL verbage

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding BP1.5 - the group will accept
   the document "addendum" as long as the wording is toned done from a
   testlike format to a more casual format, by removing the PASS/FAIL
   verbage.

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding BP1.5 - the group will accept
   the document "addendum" as long as the wording is toned done from a
   testlike format to a more casual format, by removing the PASS/FAIL
   verbage. Document also to be flattened by merging information into
   fewer subsections.

   jo: suggests that the commentary sections be reworded into less
   test-like terms, and call out where needed where this relates to
   non-DDC

   kai: the assumption of the doc is the DDC, there are some "use
   various devices" type guidance, but it would help to clarify that
   this is based on the same assumption as BP1

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding BP1.5 - the group will accept
   the document "addendum" as long as the wording is toned done from a
   testlike format to a more casual format, by removing the PASS/FAIL
   verbage.

   <jeffs> +1 to try this and see how it looks before finalizing

   <jeffs> +1 on explicit DDC statement

   kai: is there argreement that we need to explicitly state the DDC is
   the focus of the tests?

   dka: we need to watch out; there is pushback on the DDC; we may need
   to soft-pedal the dependency; the link to BP1 already provides that

   kai: we need to be explicit about the DDC since there are many tests
   that are based upon this assumption

   dka: wouldn't there be an issue if we reinforce the DDC?

   <jeffs> if there are tests which depend upon the device context,
   then we need to be explicit about that

   <Zakim> dom, you wanted to make a proposal

   jo: the DDC has served its purpose, but the example kai gives is one
   that we should clarify; there may be flexibility we could mention to
   include more capable devices in the test

   dom: DDC is one of the delivery context properties; for each test we
   should identify the context properties that are relevant, in general

   kai: we should explain this for each test?

   dom: for specific tests, we should clarify dependencies on the
   properties of the test device where important

   kai: a good point, but it may change direction of the document,
   toward adapting content to various device types rather than the DDC

   dom: assume that there would be a few properties that are relevant

   kai: we could mention the few relevant to each test, but that again
   takes the text in a new direction

   dka: that doesn't keep it simple; would error on the keep it simpler
   side; can we do what Dom suggests easily?

   kai: we can remove pass/fail to make it easier; I can focus on the
   delivery context and see where some further details can be added

   <Kai> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding BP1.5 - the group will accept
   the document "addendum" as long as the wording is toned done from a
   testlike format to a more casual format, by removing the PASS/FAIL
   verbage.

   <jeffs> +1

   dka: we need to close off this issue and the new name as well

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Regarding BP1.5 - the group will accept
   the document "addendum" as long as the wording is toned done from a
   testlike format to a more casual format, by removing the PASS/FAIL
   verbage.

   RESOLUTION: Regarding BP1.5 - the group will accept the document
   "addendum" as long as the wording is toned done from a testlike
   format to a more casual format, by removing the PASS/FAIL verbage.

   <Kai> ACTION: Kai to change the Addendum according to the resolution
   about toning down the test character of the document [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-847 - Change the Addendum according to the
   resolution about toning down the test character of the document [on
   Kai Scheppe - due 2008-09-25].

BP2 status

   dka: we need to schedule an editorial meeting 3-4 hours e.g. next
   week

   <Kai> ACTION: Kai to sprinkle in delivery context information (DDC
   and others) where appropriate [recorded in
   [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-848 - Sprinkle in delivery context
   information (DDC and others) where appropriate [on Kai Scheppe - due
   2008-09-25].

   dka: Friday 26th from 14:00-17:00 OK time

   adam: have made resolutions for some of Bryan's comments and
   prepared some draft text, we can continue next week
   ... issues, not resolutions

signups to the group

   dom: there were some that didn't make it by the deadline; they can
   re-signup

   <dom> ACTION: Dom to check about missing Korean participants
   [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-849 - Check about missing Korean
   participants [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2008-09-25].

   dka: there was some issue with the Korean TF members perhaps a
   communication issue; we could reach out to help them as needed

Content Transformation Guidelines

   jo: working thru the LC comments; steady progress

Accessibility

   alan: sent a message about the page re how to do BP and WCAG at the
   same time; needs text

   dka: since this isn't a standalone document, we could make this an
   overview section

   alan: will review this in upcoming meetings
   ... WCAG 2.1 won't be final for some months; WCAG has been liasing
   with other groups on review against their guidelines, but they
   haven't started that yet

   jeffs: any group issue with the email proposal on practical code
   examples? starting to get some interest from experts on
   accessibility, but don't want to get in the way

   alan: had not planned to include code examples

   jo: unsure about this, not sure whether we need to continue in this
   direction, we should discuss the direction off the call

Issues Cleansing

   dka: looking at Dom's list of proposed issues to close

   <dom> ISSUE-134?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-134 -- COLOR CONTRAST -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/134

     [19] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/134

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-134

   RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-134

   dom: issue 134 (color contrast), we should close unless further
   discussion

   <dom> ISSUE-185?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-185 -- What are the mobileOK Full deliverables? --
   OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/185

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/185

   <jeffs> +1

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-185

   RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-185

   <dom> ISSUE-236?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-236 -- Does the mobileOK TF need to create device
   which emulates the DDC for testing? -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/236

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/236

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-236

   RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-236

   <dom> ISSUE-189?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-189 -- Allow more than numeric accesskeys in
   mobileOK -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/189

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/189

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-189

   RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-189

   <dom> ISSUE-254?

   <trackbot> ISSUE-254 -- Revision of DDC and Retroactive Effect on
   BP1 -- OPEN

   <trackbot>
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/254

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/254

   <jeffs> +1

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-254

   <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-254

   RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-254

   <dom> DKA, please a 15 min slot on MW4D to the F2F agenda

   <DKA> [24]http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd3jk8v_128gb3xp5hq&hl=en

     [24] http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd3jk8v_128gb3xp5hq&hl=en

TPAC Agenda

   <dom> ACTION-835?

   <trackbot> ACTION-835 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to contact
   Stéphane to see if he is interested in presenting MW4D to BPWG at
   TPAC -- due 2008-09-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW

   <trackbot>
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/835

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/835

   <dom> close ACTION-835

   <trackbot> ACTION-835 Contact Stéphane to see if he is interested in
   presenting MW4D to BPWG at TPAC closed

   <dom> [we need to give an answer on the polycom before Sep 21]

   bryan: suggests to add a discussion on the DDWG, UWA, DCO, DCCI, etc
   state of the overall delivery context work as an important issue for
   the MWI

   <dom> [ok]

   dka: suggest to have a conf phone so that Bryan can join the
   meeting; or try it over skype

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Dom to check about missing Korean participants
   [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: Kai to change the Addendum according to the resolution
   about toning down the test character of the document [recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION: Kai to sprinkle in delivery context information (DDC
   and others) where appropriate [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2008/09/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 15:28:54 UTC

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