See also: IRC log
<trackbot-ng> Date: 10 January 2008
<hgerlach> hi all
<jo> Agenda
<scribe> Scribe: Chaals
<scribe> ScribeNick: chaals
<dom> Good Standing rules now are applied
<dom> Good Standing Rules
FD: Good standing rules apply from 1 january. You can track your status, check the rules, ...
<dom> Good Standing Tracker
FD: People will get a warning if
they are at risk of losing good standing.
... Goal is to ensure that people participate.
JR: Let's see i this achieves its
objectives.
... Welcome Jason from HP
JK: Been with HP about a year,
was with BitPhone before they got acquired. My primary focus is
usability.
... before that was at Sprint.
JR: reminder - we are now working
in public - so I hope you know that this will go down on your
permanent record - all technical stuff should be in
public.
... Dom has put everyone on the list.
PA: Do I get two copies of everything because I am on member and public lists?
DHM: That's specially for you. Will fix it soon...
Heiko: What should be sent only tothe private list
JR: There are very few things. If there is some reason to keep discussion member-only, or if there is something that is purely administrative.
JR: We haven't done much since Xmas, am working on a draft. Hope we will be ready to bring the document to the whole group by the end of the month.
DHM: For schedule, you mean FPWD in February?
JR: Yes, hope so
DHM: Is the current editors' draft available?
JR: Yes
<dom> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/071124
JR: No Sean today. Group wants to
move checker to a Beta status. I am unsure what that means. The
group needs to think about that. Also needs to fulfil Dan's
action coordinating what we need to do administratively for
MobileOK Basic.
... Dom has done some real work on analysis of missing test
cases.
Dom: I looked at current code for checker, to see which tests are implemented. Sent a message to the mailing list
<francois> Missing tests cases mail from Dom
Dom: identified a couple of tests
that are not implemented or not correctly implemented, a few
bugs, ...
... hopefully this will help get the checker in shape for the
Beta. Will also help dealing with CR exit criteria by having an
implementation.
PA: Sent report. Kai is on holiday for a couple of weeks, won't do a lot of work. Thinking of having a teleconference before Task Force F2F - suggest 24 Jan, 2 hours before this call.
[chaals will be in Australia at a conference and not able to attend the call]
JR: Everyone can attend, right?
<PhilA> I suggested that we have a telecon at 13.00 UTC on Thursday 24/1 ahead of the face to gace meeting on 5 - 6 Feb
PA: Yes. Date and time will go to the list.
<PhilA> All welcome to both
AC: Not sure when last report
was, but not a lot has happened over Xmas. WAI EO group have
written some introductory stuff.
... less technical, I like it.
<jo> EOWG Page on Mobile
AC: Big table that was in the beginning has been taken over by WAI EO.
AC: I will contribute, others here should do so, but better to work on it in WAI EO.
<jo> http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/MWBP-WCAG/accessibility_mobile_barriers.html
AC: This compares effects on
users with disabilities and users in mobile context.
... Otherwise I have been working through the
checkpoints.
... Think it should go to FPWD this month.
JR: There are lots of blanks to be done first, no?
AC: Thought that it was OK to
publish noting that the draft is only a draft and is
incomplete.
... waiting for the working groups to give the go-ahead to
transition it to FPWD.
Bryan: Do you know date they are asking for comments?
AC: This month.
Bryan: Chasing up in ATT, expect to provide input for this review.
JR: Any idea on timeline?
Bryan: meeting with them next week.
JR: This is a joint spec between
the two groups - this group still has input into when/whether
transition happens. I am happy for WAI EO to publish, but it is
a joint document.
... I have reviewed this in sme detail. Pretty good, but think
it needs more work before it goes public.
... Think we want to carefully check the relationships are ones
we agree on before we publish.
AC: I am going through the checkpoints in that list
CMN: I think we can publish as is. I have disagreed with classifications, but don't see that we need to plan for three people (mostly Alan) to figure it all out before we publish.
AC: Could add clearer explanation on the draft to clarify the situation
JR: Trying to avoid people giving
feedback under misapprehension
... would it be useful to have a call for this?
AC: If people are interested
[CMN unlikely to join such a call, but will try to make time to give more feedback by any such call]
[CMN I have a hard enough time joining the main calls...]
<Bryan> 1+
<dom> [I would do that as well]
<jo> +1
[scribe believes the +1 are to providing feedback]
<jo> [scribe is right]
<scribe> ACTION: Alan to Coordinate a call with WAI EO, provide notice of date and call for feedback as input [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<achuter> ACTION: Alan to plan for a call to review document and coordinate with EOWG on it. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Alan
<trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. achuter, atai)
<achuter> ACTION: achuter to plan for a call to review document and coordinate with EOWG on it. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-617 - Plan for a call to review document and coordinate with EOWG on it. [on Alan Chuter - due 2008-01-17].
<dom> First Draft of BP 2
Bryan: Sent a draft in email to
member list. Looking for feedback...
... I am getting administrivia sorted.
JR: The document looks a bit thin...
<edm> wonders what would the best process for commenting and expanding the current draft - via public mail list?
<dom> [I think commenting on the public list would be appropriate, indeed]
Bryan: Currently there are just the things we came up with in the meeting. Intent is to establish the goal, how it relates to BP1, what areas are under consideration, how the subject has changed in the last 3 years, etc.
<dom> Bryan's notes on BP2
Bryan: Driving thing is exploring
capabilities to create great web content.
... Focus is on what works, but also taking advantage of
advanced features as available.
... Focus should be more than just content developers, should
also include toolkit developers etc.
[CMN notes Judy Brewer's advice to focus on Authoring Tools, about 2 years ago]
Bryan: Devices have moved on. We
had a decision not to try and pick an Advanced Delivery Context
per se, but to focus on the various advanced features
available
... Accessibility is a goal. We have to focus on how to make
things great in the mobile context.
JR: Think the resolution of July is superseded by resolution in Boston. We are thinking more specifically about scripting capabilities.
[CMN +1]
JR: Think we can let the document develop its own momentum/direction.
Bryan: Would be good to have more
thoughts about how the resolutions we have taken fit together.
The list o 17 specific things we came up with shows there are
specific challenges.
... should be thinking about technologies that are going to be
constrained by the same context, not just "browsers"
... we have a brainstormed list from the meeting. Suggest we
try to think "what does the market need in terms of best
practices"
JR: We should try to be more systematic, and look at existing sources of information. Do you have a view as to what the existing sources may be?
Bryan: Ones I know reflect earlier work of this group. Open to further pointers.
JR: BP1 is derivative of various documents (Sprint, Opera, Nokia, WCAG, and others)
Dom: Reviewing the existing
materials is very important. We should go back to some of the
sources to find whether they have evolved or had material we
didn't take into BP1.
... we may also want to look at inviting some people to the
group.
Bryan: Can look at other material and look around. There are a number of organisations who have published information, and we can bring some to the document.
<jo> [bryan to take an ACTION to raise ISSUE on sources and references and raise awareness on public list that we are looking for such source]
<scribe> ACTION: Bryan to Raise ISSUE on sources and references, raise awareness we are looking for same [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action04]
<edm> wonders if it would make sense to re-examine the old /BP1 Scope/ doc [http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp-scope/] to contrast what is different in BP2...
Bryan: Believe there is a shift
from focusing on web content to focusing on applications.
... similar issues, but more interaction stuff.
<dom> [that's my understanding as well]
JR: That's my understanding.
[CMN sounds like what everyone is saying...]
<dom> ["mobile web experiences", nice phrase]
Bryan: BP2 Extends the focus. It
is built upon BP1 and follows in the same vein. The
fundamentals still apply
... the rest is just a bullet list, will be a description of
the problem space etc along teh same organisational lines as
BP1. First thing to work on is requirements.
JR: Makes sense to me...
Ed: wondered if we should look at BP1 Scope document as well as BP document to see what is different, what is continued... May help structuring the current phase of work.
Bryan: Sure.
Ed: I am happy to take an ACTION item...
<scribe> ACTION: EdM to Review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action05]
<jo> ACTION EdM to Review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2
<jo> ACTION: EdM to Review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - EdM
<dom> ACTION: Ed to Review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/10-bpwg-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-618 - Review Scope of BP1 to see what it tells us about scope of BP2 [on Edward Mitukiewicz - due 2008-01-17].
<edm> well put
<dom> ACTION-592?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-592 -- Edward Mitukiewicz to report whether he can be editor of the document who shall not be named -- due 2008-01-03 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/592
JR: Ed, you have a couple of outstanding action items. Are you going to co-edit this?
EdM: Not sure yet.
... should know early next week.
... think the action I just took includes what I wanted to put
in.
JR: Think there is a placeholder for this already. However it emerges, seems good.
<Zakim> PhilA, you wanted to add a quick AOB
<PhilA> I will be speaking at http://www.iir-events.com/IIR-Conf/Telecoms/EventView.aspx?EventID=1388
PA: I *am* paying
attention.
... I will be speaking at an event in March in Berlin about
adaptation, mobileOK, and so forth.
... have a plenary session, and a half-day briefing session
before. Hope Kai will be there too.
<PhilA> bye
ADJOURNED
<edm> bye
<hgerlach> bye and thanks
<abel_> bye
<jo> [thanks CHaals for scribing!]
<Magnus> bye