See also: IRC log
Kai proposed charter for the mobileoK TF http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.html
Jo: 3 issues: TF leader, charter,
and meeting next week
... Kai, you're volunteering as TF leader, right?
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Kai is mobileOK Pro TF Leader
Kai: yes, thought that's what was already the case
<jo> RESOLUTION: Kai is mobileOK Pro TF Leader
ACTION-612?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-612 -- Kai Scheppe to write a charter for mobileOK Pro TF by January -- due 2008-01-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/612
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.html
Kai: we want to make the tests
repeatable
... I proposed a format for that, which people in Boston said
was OK
Jo: there were several
comments:
... the TF should refine its scope - which seems reasonable
Kai: and is part of the charter proposal
Jo: regarding changes to mobileOK basic, I would be reluctant to this
Kai: we don't intend to change mobileOK basic, but while reviewing it to integrate them in pro, we may find problems with them
Jo: dom raised a question on how much extension is intended
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0050.html Dom's position
Jo: it would be useful that the scope of work answer these questions
Kai: that sounds reasonable,
indeed
... and this should help restrict the amount of work we're
targeting
Jo: that's a concern that many
share, I think
... this relates to another comment that was made: we have 9
months left in our charter, which seems pretty limited for such
a work
... also, it's not clear whether the TF is also doing in
mobileOK scheme and labels
Kai: our intent from what I understand is that we'll only focus on mobileOK Pro tests
Jo: another point I made is that
mobileOK basic is a pre-requirement to mobileOK Pro
... and we don't have that many sites that are mobileOK basic
at this time
... so if this concerns only ~200 people in the world, the cost
of the WG to review and approve the mobileOK pro work needs to
be taken into account
... as SeanO pointed by mail
Kai: I agree that we don't know
about popularity
... we asked whether this was worthwhile to continue and
everybody said yes
... I'm not sure why we're continuing this discussion
Jo: what I would be propose is to approve the charter, but asking the TF gets back to the group after the F2F
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to suggest a short TF charter
<inserted> ScribeNick: francois
dom: first thing, I don't think
everybody was OK in Boston going forward in MobileOK
... more problematically, I think the TF should have a chance
to show that mobileOK Pro is feasible, useful and needed
... what I would suggest to answer the concerns is that we give
the TF a short charter of 1 month or 2
... with the goal to produce a Scope document
Kai: sure, but I'm getting a bit frustrated about the reputation of this, I thought I had all the green lights...
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated for WG for confirmation of the charter and continuation of the TF
Dom: I don't want you to get
frustrated, but it took us a lot of time to do mobileOK
Basic
... and afraid it might take a lot of time
Kai: Well, it depends...
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated in a more complete charter for review by the WG to confirm the TF continuation in 2 weeks
Kai: the challenge lies in setting brackets in the human tests we're adding to the mobileOK basic
Dom: I don't want to go in
technical details but the fact that mobileOK took 1 year and a
half shows it might be hard.
... If you can show us it can be done, my point remains
mobileOK Pro was decided 18 months ago and there's no draft
yet
<inserted> ScribeNick: dom
DKA: I think we're covering
grounds that will be discussed next week
... let's see what the TF gets to propose on this
Jo: that's why I'm proposing to approve the charter, and ask the TF to get back to us
DKA: +1 to that resolution
<scribe> ACTION: Jo to summarize all the points that needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-635 - Summarize all the points that needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-02-07].
<francois> i/dom: first thing, I would suggest/ScribeNick: francois
<jo> (15:19:35) Jo: PROPOSED RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated in a more complete charter for review by the WG to confirm the TF continuation in 2 weeks
+1 to the resolution
<francois> +1
<jo> RESOLUTION: mobileOK Pro Task force to proceed with the proviso that the points raised in answer to ACTION-612 (and those from srowen) will be elaborated in a more complete charter for review by the WG to confirm the TF continuation in 2 weeks
Francois: we have switched a few
participants of the group to "not in good standing" as
decided
... let me know if you find any mistake
... it has already helped us clean the list of
participants
... it seems to be working well
<francois> Good Standing Tracker
Jo: BPWG meeting is on Mon and
Tue, UWA on Tue and Thu, and DD on Thu and Fri
... on Wed, there will be a workshop-like day with the korean
mobile web forum
<francois> Logistics for Seoul
Nacho: the person in charge of
the organization wasn't available this week - I should have
more news on this by Monday
... and will forward that to the group list
Francois: we're planning to
upgrade the BPWG blog template
... it currently is pretty ugly and not mobileOK
... I'm working on revamping it
<francois> dom: Sure, we had a call with Marie-Claire, trying to see how to move forward with the deplyment of mobileOK basic and make sure it's a success story
<francois> ... I guess main decision was to make a better plan which I agreed to address
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/results.php
<inserted> ScribeNick: Francois
Dom: I wrote a set of 4 test
cases, the goal being to record how the browsers of the wild
world interact with objects
... we have 13 records
... when the type attribute is set and set to something that
the browser doesn't recognize, it won't try to download the
resource
... with the noticeable exception of Opera and a few
others
... I made sure the tests reported what I wanted ;)
... My taste is that we enough tests
... I have no idea what a good sample would be, so I would say
we have one!
... We have enough proof that there's enough browsers that are
not dumb about these objects.
<dom> Call for tests
Jo: do the test, people, please!
<dom> ScribeNick: dom
<inserted> ScribeNick: dom
Francois: we're making
progress
... I've just had a long discussion with Yves Lafon, our HTTP
expert
... will send a report of that discussion by email
Jo: beta release is
imminent
... I think the group needs to approve this
<francois> ScribeNick: francois
<scribe> ScribeNick: dom
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: I wonder what criteria we want to set, esp. whether we need to decide now what the exit criteria for beta is
<francois> ScribeNick: francois
dom: the beta is imminent. We
have managed to do many good progress. It's much more complete
than the alpha.
... In terms of entry and exit criteria:
... * entry: all of a mobileOK is covered, but it has not all
be tested
... * exit from the beta: needs to be decided by the group, but
could be decided when the beta is out
... This also relates to the on-going work on the mobileOK test
suite
... It should not delay the beta
<nacho> btw, CTIC is going to drop the first version of the Dev Manual this weekend to the TF mailing list
<inserted> ScribeNick: dom
Jo: nacho, what's your point of
view on going to beta?
... do you think we need to be sure that all tests are
covered?
Nacho: I think we should release
it to the public together with the developer manual
... maybe we need another chapter on the testing part
Jo: any other view about going to
beta?
... if nobody objects to it,
... and if nobody thinks that we should have a formal testing
before going to beta
<jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Checker TF may declare beta when it thinks it is ready
<nacho> +1
Jo: I propose we mandate the TF to make the decision to move to beta itself
<adam> +1
+1
<francois> +1
<jo> RESOLUTION: Checker TF may declare beta when it thinks it is ready
<achuter> +1
<abel_> 1+
Jo: we have time for more points than the ones you specifically raised
AlanC: I sent a list of specific
points in my mail
... has anyone looked at those?
Jo: I have
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0102.html
Alan: for each BP, I try to
explain how a given BP can help making a page more
accessible
... although I'm not sure this group can have much input on
that aspect
Jo: generally, it's more on the
mapping from WCAG 2 to BP that this group can comment on
... but it would be good to review the document in a step by
step way
... clearly we won't have many technical comments on that part,
but we still have to review it
... I don't have much comments on this, except some editorial
ones that I'll send offline
Alan: [presenting autorefresh]
Jo: a note that in BP, we only
ask to be able to stop it
... the 2 guidelines don't completely overlap, so you basically
need to do both to conform to WCAG and BP
Alan: I propose that we get a look at the document going the other way
Jo: maybe we should actually go through all the BPs now
Alan: good idea
... AVOID_FREE_TEXT can be useful for accessibility, but
doesn't help directly for WCAG conformance
Jo: maybe the similar BPs should be grouped (e.g. AVOID_FREE_TEXT and MINIMIZE_KEYSTROKE), or have a "related" section under the relevant BP
Alan: I don't think the group will be able to comment on the WCAG2 conformance...
Jo: moving on BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY
Alan: not covered in WCAG, but it ought to be
Adam: I think the WCAG document is more stringent on this than BP, isn't it?
Alan: WCAG is much more detailed
and sophisticated given how much expertise and time they've
spent on it
... but it's not always more stringent
Adam: it would be useful to say how much increment you would need to add to get WCAG conformant (?)
Jo: it sounds reading the
document that applying the BPs don't you help so much
... we may want to be careful of the impression it gives, which
may be counterproductive
Alan: the first BPs don't have much relevance, but the ones further down do
Jo: maybe we need to revisit the order in which we present them :)
Alan: BALANCE is another example
of something that help, but isn't included in WCAG because too
vague
... same for CENTRAL_MEANING
... CLARITY (which was in WCAG 1.0) was replaced by a
reading-level guideline for the same reason
Jo: it would be useful to explain what "innate reading level " means beforehand
Alan: it relates to "age", roughly speaking
Jo: I think you might want to link to an explanation from the phrase in the 1st paragraph
Alan: COLOR_CONTRAST is rather
similar to the WCAG 1.0 CP, but with a different reasoning for
it
... to meet WCAG 2.0, you need to be a bit more careful than
what the BP says
Jo: you use both "color vision deficiency" and "color vision deficit": are they meant to mean the same thing? If so, might be worth using a single phrase
Alan: I'm not sure, that's a good point; I'll check it up
Jo: same for other phrases of
this type (e.g. "low vision", ...)
... for people that are not expert in the field, it really
helps to use the same terminology as much as possible
Alan: another point: WCAG 2.0 has an algorithm for detecting proper contrast, which may not be appropriate for BP
Jo: we had that originally, but dropped it for some reasons
Alan: the algorithm might be worth including in BP 2.0
Jo: it could actually be a useful
input to the mobileOK Pro TF
... it is more generally speaking that mobileOK Pro will change
the picture of this document quite dramatically
Alan: indeed
Jo: so let's use this as input to
the Pro meeting next week - as you're going there
... it could be an interesting perspective for mobileOK Pro to
see how much we could change some of the "possibly" to "yes",
and some "not at all" to "possibly"
Adam: going the other way, we could look at what was dropped from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0 and sees if this is a sign for something likely difficult to test?
Jo: that's very likely, indeed
Alan: CONTROL_LABELLING was in
WCAG 1.0, but was moved as a part of 4.1.2 in WCAG 2.0
... so it isn't sufficient
... idem for CONTROL_POSITION
Jo: ERROR_MESSAGES helps accessibility-wise, but doesn't give you WCAG points
Alan: IMAGE_MAPS is no added_benefit
Jo: when we move BP from PR to REC, can we take into account some of the comments from Alan?
<francois> dom: I think it's editorial, so it shouldn't blow out anything, but need to check before I can say something
<francois> Alan: the relation is not wrong, but not very helpful
Jo: when you say "When image maps are not delivered", you mean when they are not present in the document, right?
Alan: right
Jo: moving on LINK_TARGET_ID,
this one actually helps compliant!
... we need to move it up at the top of the list :)
... What do you think about rearranging the order to first the
ones that say "yes", then the "partial", and then the ones that
help but don't give you WCAG
Alan: currently they are in
alphabetical order
... but the intro text make a per BP list depending on the
level targeted
Jo: let's stop here, and start again from MEASURES on the next call
Jo: Bryan isn't on the call
... we still haven't received much input on what can be put in
the document
... we have an open issue on this
... please put some thoughts on this
ISSUE-229?
<trackbot-ng> ISSUE-229 -- Scope of mobile web applications best practices -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229
Jo: it is essential that we have
a list of references as starting point
... only suggestion so far comes from the Center for the
Handheld Web
Francois: we'll be welcome there, but it is a bit early to request a slot there
Jo: we'll have the usual haggling about overlap between groups, but we can do among chairs and team
ACTION-630?
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-630 -- François Daoust to check with organizers of the TPAC in France in October 2008 -- due 2008-01-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot-ng> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/630
close ACTION-630
<trackbot-ng> ACTION-630 Check with organizers of the TPAC in France in October 2008 closed
<edm> bye
<abel_> bye
Jo: thanks Alan for leading us through the document
<jo> thanks Dom for scribing!
<jo> d/haggling/discussion/