- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:43:34 +0900
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
available at:
http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Mark!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web and TV IG - Testing TF call
11 Sep 2013
[2]Agenda
[2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-web-and-tv/2013Sep/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Clarke, Kaz, Mark, Giridhar, Giuseppe, Daniel, Bin,
Pierre, Igarashi, Cyril
Regrets
Chair
Clarke
Scribe
Mark, giuseppep
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Graph of survey results
2. [6]Introductory text
3. [7]Requirements document
* [8]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<kaz> Scribe: Mark
Graph of survey results
<inserted> scribenick: Mark_Vic_
clarke: Kaz created a graph for his action item. Kaz will
explain.
<kaz>
[9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/survey-results#Gra
ph_generated_using_the_above_results
[9]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/survey-results#Graph_generated_using_the_above_results
kaz: I put the graph on the wiki. the graph includes all 53
results from the surveys.
... The color represents the category of each spec.
... The color is described in the key below the graph.
... External survey on X axis, internal survey is Y axis.
--- Most important is upper right
<giuseppep> scribenick: giuseppep
<scribe> scribe: giuseppep
mark: the testing group now has a TV profile, that came for me
as a temporary input waiting for this group to finilize this
work
... we now need to provide something similar, that replace what
they have
... if we give them this set of data they would have to do this
work
<inserted> scribenick: Mark_Vic_
<giuseppep> scribe: mark
giuseppe: we are mixing some internal and external list info,
FYI
... I agree we need to generate a profile, but I think a
ranking is more useful than a threshold binary decision
clarke: Agree that it's more useful to have a ranking, but also
useful to have a threshold to get a first list
giuseppe: i think we should supply all this data to the testing
group, and they can decide what to do.
... The coremob list was more from the app POV, whereas the TV
list was more regarding devices POV
clarke: does everyone agree with that? [no disagreements]
... we could try more than one approach and compare & decide
... I'd like volunteers to provide columns of priorities
... Clarke & Mark Vickers volunteered to make ranking &
threshold columns
<kaz> ACTION: Clarke to work with Mark and create aggregated
rank and mandatory/optional columns for the survey table
[recorded in
[10]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
giuseppe: do we also include the graph?
clarke: yes [no one disagreed]
giuseppe: so the final result will be a ranking, a threshold
and the graph [no one disagreed]
... In answer to question on the list, we should send it to
Tobie's testing coordination group.
clarke: so, we send to tobie directly & let him distribute from
there
Introductory text
<inserted> [11]Clarke's generated text (Member only)
[11]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-web-and-tv/2013Sep/0001.html
clarke: Moving to the paragraph (which is on GoToMeeting now)
giuseppe: change name. take name from wiki or address to tobie
... second, also explain that this is different from the
coremob profile in that it is focused on devices and not
applications
... mobile was definitely focussed on applications
<kaz> ACTION: Clarke to edit introductory paragraph to include
description of audience polled and add correct group name
[recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html#action03]
mav: suggest we explain where data is from but not characterize
as device vs. app
clarke: any suggestion on where to publish this?
ddavis: I'll ask tobie
<ddavis> ACTION: ddavis to ask tobie about how/where to publish
testing coverage list [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-142 - Ask tobie about how/where to
publish testing coverage list [on Daniel Davis - due
2013-09-18].
Requirements document
clarke: giuseppe, do you want to discuss your comments next?
... the comments are grouped into categories
<Clarke> Req. Document:
[14]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zY5_C0ZK4_Z2_WMSf2MSu5p
BI8tNAgmL2o-Ua_rv1Jg/edit?pli=1#heading=h.raug22jjh5xz
[14]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zY5_C0ZK4_Z2_WMSf2MSu5pBI8tNAgmL2o-Ua_rv1Jg/edit?pli=1#heading=h.raug22jjh5xz
giuseppe: First comment: Descriptions needed.
clarke: agree
giuseppe: About requirements themselves, one thing missing: Do
we need the result to be machine readable? Do we need the
results to be tamper-proof?
clarke: I'll add that
giuseppe: Some of my comments may be resolved when descriptions
are added, so I'll hold off on those
giusppe: Also, not sure why we distinguish general requirements
from specific use case requirements
clarke: This just reflects how the requirements were derived,
but not sure that evolutionary info is useful in the final
report
... In general, I welcome comments on how this report whould be
delivered
giuseppe: I feel one general requirement is more useful than
the specific/general categories.
... For example, there is duplication between the two lists.
... On the performance requirements: some may be different for
different groups. Should the requirements target which group it
is for?
clarke: I like pointing groups at particular requirements
giuseppe: we alos need to be specific what we want from each
group.
... After the first part of use case requirements, we jump to
specific spec requirements (e.g. EME)
... It's not clear to me why we have specific requirements for
some specs and not others
... we also have specific spec requirements for specs that
aren't in the priority table (e.g. NSD spec)
clarke: table mostly published specs
giuseppe: Need to explain this in the document. explain why we
picked certain specs in ranking.
... for example, the section on specific specs could say:
"We're monitoring these specs in development and here are some
additional testing requirements..."
bin: If we submit the doc to specific groups, it's clear what
we want, but what do we want from tobie's group
giuseppe: We want tobie to update the TV mandatory spec list
and also use the ranking as needed
(apologize for jumping the queue.)
gmandyam: I was in the coremob group and part of the problem
was that the specification list wasn't as useful without
performance levels.
... for example, MSE is an example of a requirement that may
not work at the JavaScript performance level in mobile devices.
So, are we going to address performance level.
<gmandyam> Thanks for summarizing - Mark
giuseppe: I tried to add a general need for performance, but
perhaps we also need to address it at the specific spec level,
e.g. CSS animation
... Of course, performnace spec would require a standard way to
test performance
clarke: Is performance level a spec issue or a market issue
gmandyam: My point is that if you're just specifying
functionality without performance, you're not doing a full
service. Is performance in scope?
clarke: The group never addressed performance as a scope issue
one way or the other
giuseppe: I think we need to address performance
clarke: My hesitation is that performance specs can get very
complex
giuseppe: Not sure we need to provide the benchmarks in this
group, perhaps just highlight which specs need performance
testing and work with the specific working groups on develping
performace tests
clarke: running out o f time
... suggest taking performance issue to email list
... we have a number of specific action items on the document
... I'll add action items as formal action items
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if we want to invite Tobie to
this call itself (maybe next time?)
kaz: seems we need even more collaboration with tobie's team,
so why not have a joint meeting by phone and/or a joint F2F at
TPAC?
clarke: clarke & kaz will follow up on joint meetings
<kaz> ACTION: Clarke to work with Kaz and consider joint
meeting(s) with general testing group (Tobie) and make
recommendations [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html#action04]
<Bin_Hu>
[16]http://www.principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt
/
[16] http://www.principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/
bin: Not sure performance is priority of any w3C group now.
... there is an external group (link above) that is providing
performance test info
gmanyam: decision to deprioritize performance is tobie's
decision. I have provided a performance tool that could be used
to tobie.
giuseppe: [unintelligible audio]
<Clarke> Thanks for scribing, Mark
clarke: Let's continue discussion on mail list
... meeting adjourned
<kaz> [ adjourned ]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Clarke to work with Mark and create aggregated
rank and mandatory/optional columns for the survey table
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Clarke to edit introductory paragraph to include
description of audience polled and add correct group name
[recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: ddavis to ask tobie about how/where to publish
testing coverage list [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Clarke to work with Kaz and consider joint
meeting(s) with general testing group (Tobie) and make
recommendations [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-webtv-minutes.html#action04]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [21]scribe.perl version
1.138 ([22]CVS log)
$Date: 2013-09-11 15:58:03 $
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 02:44:15 UTC