Best Practices break out group -- chair Johan

What is the relationship with "Mobile OK!" ?

 - Guidelines are important.

Emulators should be a reliable indication of the user
experience on the phone.

Johan: emulators can't provide the tactile experience of
real phones.

What is the relationship between emulators and "Mobile OK!"?

We need a means to check that the emulators are correct.

Bennett: there needs to be an objective measure behind
adherence to "Mobile OK!", this might also be accompanied
with subjective measures.

There are some issues:

  - You need automatic tools to validate content

  - There needs to be independent checks against the
    possibiity of people abusing the trust mark

  - there needs to be a means to stop such abuses

If you do have some subjective measures, this should be
monitored by a community of users (peer ranking).

Will Mobile OK content work on all devices?

Probably only on devices shown to support the associated
spefications.

Bennett: the Mobile OK idea was created by Tim Berners-Lee
some months back. It meant that the content adheres to the
associated specifications.

Let's keep the scope down to a small set of specs.

Agreement that the community looks after the adherence of
claims to the Mobile OK trust mark.

If the community thinks a site isn't conforming to the trust
mark, then there should be a means to prevent its abuse, i.e.
sanctions to stop its use.

Mobile OK! has two aspects:

  1) technology e.g. design guidelines and validation
  2) brand understood and trusted by end-users

Any kind of community judgement should be out of scope for W3C.

Johan: how do we capture best practices? How to we collect input
from the community?

Companies like Volantis and MobileAware have a lot of experience
that would be valuable to tap as input for a best practices
discussion.

We shouldn't steal their business from under their feet.

There would still be plenty of scope for their skills with a
Mobile OK brand, e.g. helping companies to design services
that match the brand.

Another idea is a galley of good sites, ranked by voting from
the community.

This is a bit like the work on the Virtual Library initiative
that was separated from the W3C very early on.

If we rely in a third party for conformance testing, the costs
will spiral out of control. The model has to be self sustaining.

There is a useful analogue in the accessibility world that we
could leverage. There are legislative penalties that apply.

What do we think about CSS Media Queries? This looks like a
valuable approach.

There are a lot of second level issues that can be objectively
measured. 

if there are rival approaches how do we say which is better?

Answer: community feedback and market forces.

Johan wraps up.

If we picked from the currently available standards the ones
we feel are important, what process do we follow.

Poll on which standards are considered to be important

(we run out of time)

A gap analysis would be nice!