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