W3C

Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
18 Oct 2007

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Ed_Mitukiewicz, Dom, jo, SeanPatterson, Adam, Kai_Dietrich, DKA, , srowen, shah, achuter,
Regrets
Mike, Ignacio, Abel, Robert_Finean, Bryan, Charles, Magnus, Bruno
Chair
Jo
Scribe
jo, srowen

Contents


Transition to public proceedings

jo: ACTION-559

<dom> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/559

<edm> See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2007Oct/0044.html

edm: I think we agreed that everything would be conducted in public unless otherwise requested

I think we addressed remaining concerns

<scribe> new home page will be public

only private items would be email, and this would not be retroactively applied to old messages and so on

<Zakim> dom, you wanted to comment on visibility of standing

dom: we can make public only name and affiliation of members

keep current version, or create separate public version?

(+1 to making a public version if it's easy)

<dom> +1

jo: I support this

<edm> +1

<dom> Public version of the participation list

jo: Let's assume we will have a public version
... old private material will remain private

<Kai> I for one would rather not have the usage data I provided for the group in the public domain

need plan to enact this

<dom> [I just made our Group page public]

dom: happy to make any pages public

jo: what about making a new page?

probably don't want to bring into public view a page linking to old drafts, etc.

dom: wouldn't this break links?

jo: but we would leave existing documents in place

edm: see message for specifics. I examined the links and it looks fine

in general we agreed old docs remain private

jo: want to avoid broken links off home page, to old docs

will take an action to discuss with appropriate person about this

<jo> ACTION: Jo to progress public/private plan with Dom etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-580 - Progress public/private plan with Dom etc. [on Jo Rabin - due 2007-10-25].

mobileOK Tests

jo: have written proposed responses to all LC3 comments, except those that came in yesterday?

srowen: right, though they are mostly editorial

jo: getting ready to request transition to CR

but dom has suggested we should define exit criteria

dom: to transition to CR, of course need to finalize document and answer all comments

need to agree on exit criteria too

for the BP document, we required that each BP be implemented twice on a web site

suggest we need examples of mobileOK Basic compliant web sites, maybe 5-10

need to include the requirement of having checker implementations

we have the library that was just released for example

maybe need URLs to test mobileOK Basic

<Zakim> edm, you wanted to clarify some details for Dom

jo: need compliant web sites, implementation, and test suites for a checker

srowen: i agree with the criteria and believe we can argue we have met them

kai: dom said we need to implement everything twice: ?

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a) 10 mobileOK compliant Web sites, b) 2 checkers implement each aspect of each test c) a test suite to verify the correct operation of checkers

dom: this was the criteria we chose for BP document, but we don't need that criteria for mobileOK Basic

I mean we should show that the main page is mobileOK on a site, not necessarily every single page

+1

dom: maybe just 1 checker?

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a) 10 mobileOK compliant Web pages, b) there exists a checker that checks each aspect of each test c) a test suite to verify the correct operation of checkers

<Kai> +1

<jo> RESOLUTION: Exit criteria from CR for mobileOK are a) 10 mobileOK compliant Web pages, b) there exists a checker that checks each aspect of each test c) a test suite to verify the correct operation of checkers

<jo> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-mobileOK-basic10-tests-20070928/

jo: there are more, but they may all be editoriala

(srowen: I will enter those new comments into tracker)

jo: LC-1855

srowen: think that maybe 'usability' is just a slightly overloaded term

just wanting to say mobileOK Basic is looking for basic problems, not confirming a site is great

I think the intended point is clear so would be ok with current wording

jo: is there a better word?

achuter: the tests are testing for the negative, for problems rather than positive things

jo: think it's not so important and we can leave as is?

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1855 No We take your point but we don't think any ambiguity is introduced by this

srowen: yes I think one can construe these as more about following specs rather than usability

+1

<jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1855 No We take your point but we don't think any ambiguity is introduced by this

LC-1859 resolves last week

jo: LC-1857
... agree that we probably do want to count 302/401 'against' the page

<Kai> He seems to think exclusively aobut a 301 error

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1857 No We are keen to minimise rounds trips and reduce the overall data transfer burden which is why it is like it is

<jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1857 No We are keen to minimise rounds trips and reduce the overall data transfer burden which is why it is like it is

LC-1856

srowen: tester doc does define behavior of test clients, but this does not mean mobileOK Basic tests define client behavior tests

jo: so we should note that the test client behavior we describe is not necessarily suggested for clients?

kai: so this is resolved yes if we are making an editorial change

srowen: yes

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1856 Yes, we agree that it is worth clarifying that the checkers behavior should not be taken as bing indicative of how we think a client should behave in general

<jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1856 Yes, we agree that it is worth clarifying that the checkers behavior should not be taken as bing indicative of how we think a client should behave in general

LC-1854

jo: yes -- warn means a couple things, is it worth capturing? can't be determined, or may not be so serious?

srowen: yes, think it's worth a brief note

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of clarification is warranted

+1

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of clarification is warranted e.g. that it can't be determined, that it may be because it is dubious practice that in some circumstances can't be avoided

<jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1854 Yes, we think a note of clarification is warranted e.g. that it can't be determined, that it may be because it is dubious practice that in some circumstances can't be avoided

Topic LC-1858

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: LC-1858 Yes, partial, the bevavior is deliberate in order to allow for the testing of error pages. We will add a note clarifying this.

<jo> RESOLUTION: LC-1858 Yes, partial, the bevavior is deliberate in order to allow for the testing of error pages. We will add a note clarifying this.

Task Force Reports

<Zakim> dom, you wanted to propose a few amendments to the proposed resolution: s/Web sites/Web sites hompages/; and ask about "2 checkers..."

jo: CT taskforce let group decide what to do

dom: group is OK with publishing the doc provided we change the title a bit about 'challenges'

jo: I meant we should say they don't need group resolutions to do this

we just want something to happen quickly -- approve all this including whatever further editorial changes are needed

dom: yes

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do and providing changes are editorial no further resolutions to publish required from BPWG

<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do about Problem Statement Problem and providing changes are editorial no further resolutions to publish required from BPWG

<jo> RESOLUTION: CT Task Force to figure out what to do about Problem Statement Problem and providing changes are editorial no further resolutions to publish required from BPWG

Accessibility Task Force

achuter: on accessibility, there has not been much participation

there has not been much progress on the document

lack of participation remains an issue

concern is about spending effort to become mobileOK, but then having to do more, or undo that work, to be accessible

dom: who is participating in the accessibility TF now?

achuter: myself, maybe someone from CTIC. Maybe Bruno, Dave from Segala. Little has happened yet though

jo: possibly Charles as well

achuter: David from Barcelona has tried to send comments but haven't gone through

jo: let's discuss at F2F

Checker TF Report

<jo> scribe: jo

<dom> [I have started fixing a few of them (bugs) :) ]

srowen: alpha release out, please play with it and report bugs, there may be a few?
... another release before F2F

<scribe> scribe: srowen

dom: send me an e-mail if you would like the URI of a very experimental web interface to this implementation

F2F Agenda for Boston

<jo> Proposed agenda

<dom> http://www.w3.org/mid/C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B47D4091@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local

<DKA> +1

jo: group dinner?

+1

jo: (reviews agenda)

need to review task forces and possibly kill, say, HTML 5 taskforce if needed

jo: (still reviewing agenda)

we have a very large turnout, including observers

<dom> [it is good practice to send an ack mail to observers, fwiw]

<dom> Registrants for BPWG meeting

Seoul questionnaire

<jo> Need people to respond to Seoul quesionnaire, at the moment it is in doubt as we only have 8 positive responses.

<jo> (thanks to Sean for Scribing)

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Jo to progress public/private plan with Dom etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/18-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/10/18 15:27:35 $