- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:09:21 +0200
- To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi,
We had an editorial meeting on the addendum spec this morning.
We went through the actions that had been created during last week's F2F
on the topic and closed them.
We started updating sections wording with a view to making things clear
for readers.
The rough minutes of today's meeting are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2009/04/03-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.
Next steps:
- Jo will go continue to update the document in as he already did for
sections 3.1 to 3.10.
- Another editorial meeting is planned though not scheduled yet in a few
weeks.
Francois.
-----
03 Apr 2009
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/03-bpwg-irc
Attendees
Present
achuter, DKA, jo, jsmanrique, Kai, francois.
Regrets
none
Chair
Kai
Scribe
francois
Contents
The one and only one topic of the session was to review the changes
brought to the latest draft of the Addendum to the Mobile Web Best
Practices document, as agreed during last week's F2F, and to further
wordsmith the document. Another editorial meeting is needed and
should be scheduled in a few weeks.
The following are rough minutes taken during the editorial sessions.
The document, that was edited in real-time, is available at
[3]http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&pli=1
_________________________________________________________
[3] http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&pli=1
[4]http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&pli=1
[4] http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&pli=1
[5]http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-addendum-feedback/result
s
[5]
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/37584/BPWG-addendum-feedback/results
[6]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Apr/0002.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Apr/0002.html
Kai: I went through my actions yesterday, mostly done. I suggest
people have a look at yellow parts in the doc.
DKA: suggest we go through the actions.
ACTION-936?
<trackbot> ACTION-936 -- Kai Scheppe to re-write 1.2 in a more happy
clappy way -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[7]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/936
[7] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/936
Kai: Section 1.2. Make it a happy clappy section.
DKA: Wasn't there some sentiment that "may not provide as good a
user experience" is a bit too negative?
francois: agree with Dan.
Kai: [going through the section]
DKA: what about "in order to provide an optimized user experience"?
Kai: maybe we could just strip the end of the sentence.
<scribe> ... done. There's a formatting issue, but aside from that,
looks fine.
<Kai> Jo, we are talking about 1.2
<achuter> xxxxxxxxx
<Kai> [8]http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&pli=1
[8] http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d2vmqg3_0c469pzdh&pli=1
<Kai> close action-936
<trackbot> ACTION-936 Re-write 1.2 in a more happy clappy way closed
ACTION-937?
<trackbot> ACTION-937 -- Kai Scheppe to correct spelling errors --
due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[9]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/937
[9] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/937
<Kai> close action-937
<trackbot> ACTION-937 Correct spelling errors closed
ACTION-938?
<trackbot> ACTION-938 -- Kai Scheppe to correct last paragraph of
1.2 - it doesn't have \"tests\" and Best PRactices should read
mobileOK Basic Tests -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[10]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/938
[10] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/938
<Kai> close action-938
<trackbot> ACTION-938 Correct last paragraph of 1.2 - it doesn't
have \"tests\" and Best PRactices should read mobileOK Basic Tests
closed
ACTION-939?
<trackbot> ACTION-939 -- Kai Scheppe to replace example in section
3.4 with an image (as it doesn't print etc.) -- due 2009-04-03 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[11]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/939
[11] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/939
<DKA> ACTION-939?
<trackbot> ACTION-939 -- Kai Scheppe to replace example in section
3.4 with an image (as it doesn't print etc.) -- due 2009-04-03 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/939
[12] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/939
Kai: ACTION-939, on the background readability.
... question: where do we store the image?
francois: just close to the document. No problem.
[DKA leaving]
Kai: question about bibliography.
... Reformatted. There are fewer references than before.
... Online tools are referenced inline, because they are not
documents.
... Seems to be the way that it should be done. Is that correct?
jo: It seems fine to me. The convention is usually that if you are
referring to a section of a document, you link to the section and
then add a reference to the doc.
<Kai> close action-939
<trackbot> ACTION-939 Replace example in section 3.4 with an image
(as it doesn't print etc.) closed
Kai: ok.
ACTION-940?
<trackbot> ACTION-940 -- Kai Scheppe to provide a reference to the
Ishigara Colour Blindness test -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/940
[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/940
Kai: I used Wikipedia for the Ishihara Test for Color Blindness
<Kai> [14]http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.asp
[14] http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/Ishihara.asp
jo: that does not seem so right.
Kai: I can't think of a better way.
<jo> [ISHiHARA} ^ S. Ishihara, Tests for colour-blindness (Handaya,
Tokyo, Hongo Harukicho, 1917).
<jo> [ISHiHARA] S. Ishihara, Tests for colour-blindness (Handaya,
Tokyo, Hongo Harukicho, 1917).
jo: The reference is presumably something like what I just pasted.
This is of no use to anyone, but that's the reference.
Kai: we're trying to show something, so providing a link looks much
more useful.
jo: I don't disagree. (©Jo)
Kai: there is another view we may take on this. Alan said that a
test for colour-blindness was maybe not the correct test to consider
for background readability.
... We could simply drop it then.
jo: if we can't find something more authoritative than Wikipedia,
then let's drop it, yes.
kai: any dissent?
[no]
Kai: OK. Gone.
<Kai> close action-940
<trackbot> ACTION-940 Provide a reference to the Ishigara Colour
Blindness test closed
ACTION-941?
<trackbot> ACTION-941 -- Kai Scheppe to add a refernce to the
algorithm for determining contrast -- due 2009-04-03 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/941
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/941
Kai: ACTION-941, contained in the reference to WCAG2.
<Kai> close action-941
<trackbot> ACTION-941 Add a refernce to the algorithm for
determining contrast closed
ACTION-942?
<trackbot> ACTION-942 -- Kai Scheppe to drop section 2. And maybe
insert an explanatory section on the layout of the evaluations (to
maintain numbering) -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/942
[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/942
Kai: I removed former section 2, and added a new one.
<jsmanrique> what about "relevant context delivery properties"?
francois: wondering about "device properties". Not anymore limited
to "device".
Kai: Jo proposed some text in 3.1: Relevant Delivery Context
Capabilities
jo: that would be consistent with other documents, yes.
francois: and it encompasses more than just device. I agree with
that.
<achuter>
[17]http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/effective-color-contrast
/
[17] http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/effective-color-contrast/
<achuter> Is good resource for color contrast
jo: note I went through the document and did a bit of
re-capitalization.
... I've touched a lot of the document, actually.
kai: ok, will take them into account.
... back to topic. Replace "Relevant Device Properties" by "Relevant
Delivery Context Properties"?
<jsmanrique> +1
[general agreement]
Kai: can I delete the original section 2?
jo: I don't find 2.1 as being out of scope.
francois: I was the one who felt it is out of context, because we're
talking about evaluation procedures, carried by a guy in front of
his computer, no need for a digital format to express the result.
jo: ok, how about this?
<jsmanrique> fine for me
[jo editing section 2.1]
jo: I think it's better if we keep it as short as possible in
general. So I just cut in the flesh of your text, Kai.
kai: looks fine.
<Kai> close action-942
<trackbot> ACTION-942 Drop section 2. And maybe insert an
explanatory section on the layout of the evaluations (to maintain
numbering) closed
ACTION-943?
<trackbot> ACTION-943 -- Kai Scheppe to rephrase 3.15 ref tables --
due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/943
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/943
Kai: About 3.15, I did some rewording around "test"
... The examples section is the one that was most updated.
... I integrated francois' comment on not endorsing the use of
tables for layout.
<jsmanrique> "While tables should never be used for layout
purposes", what about "must never be used"
jo: I don't think it says anything different from BP1.0, does it?
... It is very hard to say something that is actionable in this
context.
<jo> --> [19]http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#d0e704 DEFICIENCIES
[19] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#d0e704
francois: agree with Jo that this doesn't add anything to what's
already being said in BP1.0
Kai: ok, we can simply remove it then.
[agreement to remove current section 3.15]
Close ACTION-943
<trackbot> ACTION-943 Rephrase 3.15 ref tables closed
ACTION-944?
<trackbot> ACTION-944 -- Kai Scheppe to drop 4. in 3.17 -- due
2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/944
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/944
<Kai> close action-944
<trackbot> ACTION-944 Drop 4. in 3.17 closed
Kai: another question on 3.17. That's where we mentioned the "face"
attribute.
<Kai> [21]http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/att_font_face.asp
[21] http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/att_font_face.asp
jo: isn't that a bit moot since the font element is deprecated?
kai: I think we can remove the bullet point without losing anything.
jo: let's take it out, then.
<Kai> close action-944
<trackbot> ACTION-944 Drop 4. in 3.17 closed
jo: I think there's some editorial changes that need to be done to
section 3.17.
... It needs to be clarified a bit, in the sense that if you use the
em element, then the result of it is that it will appear in italic.
... so are talking about the direct use of deprecated elements or
the visible result?
<jo> <em>Oh!</em>
kai: using "em" would be the correct way of doing it.
<Kai> <b<Oh!>/b>
kai: but using "b" would not be correct.
jo: what it says is that we're saying use semantic tags. We need to
be clear that we're not saying don't use them.
... We already say this somewhere between mobileOK and BP1.0
... So what does it add?
kai: let's say I use a bold element to express a heading element
francois: the mobileOK Checker fails for this at two different
steps: 1. XHTML validation, and 2. STYLE_SHEETS_USE test
<jsmanrique> [22]http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#fonts
[22] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#fonts
kai: the Human test part is not checked.
francois: ok, first bullet point is the machine test, no need to
repeat.
[jo rewriting first bullet point to make a reference to mobileOK]
francois: more generic question on the use of the term "check". It
does not help assess whether it's good or bad.
[more rewriting]
jo: the first bullet is not dependent on CSS. The second bullet is.
The third bullet can go.
kai: ok.
jo: As an editorial point, I tried to stick to "verify" and "assess"
in changes I made.
... The goal is to replace "check" and make it clearer what is good
or bad.
... On the examples part, bold and underline are either the result
of using semantic elements that render as bold or underline or the
result of the direct use of using b and u elements.
kai: it says "expressed", not "rendered"
... but please reword.
[23]http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-Q
[23] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-Q
ACTION-945?
<trackbot> ACTION-945 -- Kai Scheppe to move 3.18 Note into examples
-- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[24]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/945
[24] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/945
kai: moved it to the examples part.
<Kai> close action-945
<trackbot> ACTION-945 Move 3.18 Note into examples closed
francois: already contained in second and third bullets.
kai: remove?
francois: yes.
ACTION-946?
<trackbot> ACTION-946 -- Kai Scheppe to add bandwidth to device
properties in 3.30 -- due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[25]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/946
[25] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/946
kai: I added bandwidth. And reworded the second bullet on style
properties being used somewhere in the Web site.
... Looks good?
<jsmanrique> makes sense for me
jo: that seems fine.
<Kai> close action-946
<trackbot> ACTION-946 Add bandwidth to device properties in 3.30
closed
<jsmanrique> left 20%
<jsmanrique> remove 10%
jo: on the evaluation procedure, what do we mean by "more than
10-20%"?
francois: we should just pick up a number. 10% would be consistent
with mobileOK (limited to the document)
jo: it's 10% for warning, 25% for FAIL in mobileOK. We do not talk
about stylesheets.
[updating to 25%]
<jo> compare: #0f0 green
jo: the last 2 bullet points will have very minimal effect, won't
they?
<jsmanrique> not sure, but maybe the phone should "translate" green
to #0f0 and the render it...
kai: I agree, the effect is very small.
<jo> border: thin solid black
<jo> border-style: solid
kai: I don't remember the exact discussion around "shorthand", but
there are techniques that can make CSS considerably shorter.
<jo> border-color: black
<jsmanrique> that's right
<jsmanrique> what about providing examples?
jo: I understand shorthand as using the property without '-'
kai: I think it referred to something else but don't remember what.
<Kai> [26]http://www.dustindiaz.com/css-shorthand/
[26] http://www.dustindiaz.com/css-shorthand/
francois: we should remove the bullet piont then if we don't
understand it.
jo: it doesn't make significant difference in my view.
... Besides, shorthand values are harder to read and write because
you never know the exact ordering and number of values you need to
put in there.
... Probably not a good idea to mention it then.
kai: ok, removed.
<Kai> close action-946
<trackbot> ACTION-946 Add bandwidth to device properties in 3.30
closed
ACTION-948?
<trackbot> ACTION-948 -- Kai Scheppe to rephrase 3.34 to not call
for table layout and propose CSS based solution as in DTAG -- due
2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/948
[27] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/948
kai: I rewrote the section.
jo: I'm not sure what is the point that you're trying to make here.
kai: imagine a table with 6 cells, 3 at the top, 3 at the bottom.
... now you increase the content of the first cell. You'll have a
nice layout where cells heights adjust.
... I had a discussion with Bert Bos on that, and he said it will be
fixed in the upcoming version of CSS.
<DKA> "the conference is restricted at this time"
<jsmanrique> ok
[28]http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#TABLES_LAYOUT
[28] http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/#TABLES_LAYOUT
francois: I think it all boils down to "what is the use of this
section"?
... It does not add much to what is already defined in BP1.0
Kai: you cannot test every possibility using a machine test.
francois: I agree. And indeed, there's no human test mentioned in
BP1.0
kai: the question is then, can we limit ourselves to "check if
tables are used in a fashion that could be achieved using CSS".
... Getting back to limitations of this test. I think tables are
still being used for layout throughout the place.
jo: I'm not understanding what the problem is, but then it does not
really matter.
kai: imagine a grid layout with 3 divs that are next to each other.
... [some more explanation]
... I feel that I'm beating up a dead horse.
francois: plus the section basically says there's some CSS solution
to the CSS limitation.
Kai: right. It doesn't work in all cases.
... But, like I said, let's remove the Limitations of the test part.
<Kai> close action-948
<trackbot> ACTION-948 Rephrase 3.34 to not call for table layout and
propose CSS based solution as in DTAG closed
[general agreement]
ACTION-950?
<trackbot> ACTION-950 -- Kai Scheppe to remove bullet 4 in 3.14 --
due 2009-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/950
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/950
kai: I removed the bullet.
Close ACTION-950
<trackbot> ACTION-950 Remove bullet 4 in 3.14 closed
<Kai> close action-950
<trackbot> ACTION-950 Remove bullet 4 in 3.14 closed
ACTION-951?
<trackbot> ACTION-951 -- Kai Scheppe to propose some text on 3.30
ref. *all* CSS for next editorial session -- due 2009-04-03 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot>
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/951
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/951
francois: already covered
<Kai> close action-951
<trackbot> ACTION-951 Propose some text on 3.30 ref. *all* CSS for
next editorial session closed
ACTION-949?
<trackbot> ACTION-949 -- Kai Scheppe to change access to access keys
in 3.1 -- due 2009-04-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[31]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/949
[31] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/949
jo: I rewrote it.
kai: so, done.
<Kai> close action-949
<trackbot> ACTION-949 Change access to access keys in 3.1 closed
ACTION 947?
<trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
ACTION-947?
<trackbot> ACTION-947 -- Jo Rabin to send Kai an example of 3 col
layout where column balance is maintained -- due 2009-04-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[32]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/947
[32] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/947
close ACTION-947
<trackbot> ACTION-947 Send Kai an example of 3 col layout where
column balance is maintained closed
jo: I went through the 10 first procedures, need to go through the
remaining ones.
kai: ok. Thanks for doing it.
... One suggestion you have is to link to BP and mobileOK where
appropriate.
jo: yes, appropriate as in not all BPs have corresponding mobileOK
tests.
... I propose an extra section be added to link to mobileOK tests.
kai: I thought we had said that we wanted no connection whatsoever
with mobileOK
francois: the problem IMO is with the confusion it might create with
DDC and non DDC.
kai: I propose we just leave it and don't do anything.
DKA: +1
jo: Let me try it and we'll see where that leads.
kai: OK. I'd like to go through the comments that were made as a
response to the questionnaire
francois: I thought all the actions were the result of the comments
kai: not sure, actually.
<jo> this is an aut-generated contents list from xml-spec
<jo> <a name="contents" id="contents">1 </a><a
href="#overview">Introduction</a><br>
<jo> 1.1 <a href="#scope">Scope</a><br>
<jo> 1.1.1 <a
href="#relationship_to_best_practices">Relationship to Best
Practices</a><br>
<jo> 1.1.2 <a
href="#out_of_scope">Out of Scope</a><br>
<jo> 1.1.3 <a
href="#beyond_mobileok">Beyond mobileOK</a><br>
<jo> 1.2 <a
href="#applicability">Applicability</a><br>
<jo> 1.3 <a
href="#claiming_mobileok_conformance">Claiming mobileOK
conformance</a><br>
francois: suggest to leave that on the side for the time being, and
have a look at Jo's changes in the first ten procedures so that he
doesn't continue in a direction we don't like.
kai: right, that was my second item, indeed.
... on to yellow notes then.
... Jo wonders what a site map means
[explanations exchanged]
francois: the order of sub-sections in 3.1 does not match that of
2.2
kai: will change 2.2
[quickly going through procedures]
kai: on to 3.5. The formatting is not correct either.
... and there were more navigation means
jo: I think Dan's colleague made a clear explanation back in Sophia
F2F.
... Stylus is what I was looking for.
francois: note a minor problem with order of the sub-sections in 3.5
jo: updating...
kai: on to 3.6. and the reference to HTTP.
... aren't we just tossing the whole bag of technologies in this
list?
jo: Yes, we are.
... replacing HTTP with XHR support
... The evaluation procedure does not look very workable.
kai: if you make a check for the DDC and make assumptions on the
capabilities it is supposed to have. And then you are trying to
improve your content for more capable devices.
... So you want to check that content has not been unnecessarily
dumbed down.
... We're just trying to make it measurable.
... The easiest idea was to compare to DDC.
jo: I think it should be easier than that. If there are multiple
versions available, then ensure they are adapted for the classes of
devices they target.
kai: isn't that too general?
jo: let me try some wording.
<scribe> [ongoing rewording]
kai: I understand the point. But what we're trying to say is exploit
capabilities at a maximum
... your suggestion would leave it totally open.
... I understand what we're trying to do. But we want it to be
measurable.
jo: It needed to be measurable when it was a PASS/FAIL document,
which it is not anymore.
... You want the best fit. That's what I'm trying to propose. The
text needs to be clarified though.
<Zakim> DKA, you wanted to note "exploitative" has a negative
sense...
DKA: I don't think we should dump the section.
... we've already discussed in the past that "exploitative" has some
negative sense.
jo: already gone.
[discussion about going for a revolution and changing the "Exploit"
device capabilities BP title]
kai: I wonder what the group wants out of this document.
... We had the initial requirement that evaluation procedures needed
to be testable. Has this gone?
... Jo is proposing a totally correct but untestable statement here.
jo: I don't think that what you wrote in the first place works
actually.
kai: It does.
jo: no
kai: yes
jo: I think the "exploit device capabilities" piece of advice is
good, but wishy washy.
... Serving the iPhone representation to a device that is not an
iPhone is wrong, for instance.
... So comparing to the DDC is wrong.
kai: I agree. It's still a test to help check the BP.
... let's make a quick poll.
francois: agree with Jo's wording, but agree as well with your point
Kai. If we cannot come up with a more detailed evaluation procedure,
the whole thing is becoming useless.
[more discussion on the topic]
francois: next steps on the document?
kai: jo wants to go on with editorial changes. That's fine by me.
Then another editorial meeting is needed.
francois: I agree.
jo: I will schedule another editorial session, but it's going to
take a couple of weeks.
kai: let's aim for 3 hours as well.
[meeting adjourned]
[End of minutes]
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 11:10:02 UTC