14:55:01 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 14:55:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-irc 14:55:03 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:55:03 Zakim has joined #bpwg 14:55:05 Zakim, this will be BPWG 14:55:05 ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG()10:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 14:55:06 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 14:55:06 Date: 31 January 2008 14:55:28 abel has joined #bpwg 14:56:23 adam has joined #bpwg 14:56:27 MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started 14:56:28 MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended 14:56:29 Attendees were 14:57:05 MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has now started 14:57:12 +Jason 14:57:52 zakim, code? 14:57:52 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 14:58:15 Regrets: Robert_Finean, srowen, yeliz, Murari, Bryan, Magnus, hgerlach, Kai, drooks, Daniel_Schutzer 14:58:20 + +20788aaaa 14:58:48 +??P12 14:58:56 zakim, ??P12 is francois 14:58:56 +francois; got it 14:59:02 +??P11 14:59:18 zakim, +2078aaaa 14:59:18 I don't understand '+2078aaaa', adam 14:59:23 abel_ has joined #bpwg 14:59:24 zakim, ??P11 is me 14:59:24 +jo; got it 14:59:26 zakim, +2078aaaa is me 14:59:26 sorry, adam, I do not recognize a party named '+2078aaaa' 14:59:32 zakim, aaaa is adam 14:59:32 +adam; got it 15:00:04 MartinJ has joined #bpwg 15:00:09 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0103.html 15:00:20 Jason has joined #bpwg 15:00:31 achuter has joined #bpwg 15:00:52 +??P19 15:00:53 +berrueta_ 15:01:04 regrets+ PhilA 15:01:12 zakim, berrueta_ is me 15:01:13 +abel_; got it 15:01:22 zakim, nacho is with me 15:01:22 +nacho; got it 15:01:33 zakim, miguel is with me 15:01:33 +miguel; got it 15:01:42 zakim, ??P19 is DKA 15:01:42 +DKA; got it 15:01:43 nacho has joined #bpwg 15:01:45 SeanP has joined #bpwg 15:01:49 +Dom 15:02:21 -DKA 15:02:31 zakim, code? 15:02:31 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), MartinJ 15:03:13 +richard 15:03:16 +SeanP 15:03:20 +??P9 15:03:50 zakim, ??P9 is Kai 15:03:50 +Kai; got it 15:04:29 ack me 15:04:37 zakim, richard is really martinJ 15:04:37 +martinJ; got it 15:05:25 zakim, pick a victim 15:05:25 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose martinJ 15:05:40 zakim, pick a victim 15:05:40 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jo 15:05:48 +DKA 15:05:50 zakim, pick a victim 15:05:50 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SeanP 15:06:04 ack me 15:06:12 ScribeNick: Dom 15:06:15 ScribeNick: om 15:06:17 ScribeNick: dom 15:06:40 Topic: mobileOK Pro TF 15:06:56 Kai proposed charter for the mobileoK TF http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.html 15:07:07 Jo: 3 issues: TF leader, charter, and meeting next week 15:07:18 ... Kai, you're volunteering as TF leader, right? 15:07:28 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Kai is mobileOK TF Leader 15:07:30 Kai: yes, thought that's what was already the case 15:07:44 RESOLUTION: Kai is mobileOK TF Leader 15:07:54 s/mobileOK TF/mobileOK Pro TF/g 15:08:04 ACTION-612? 15:08:04 ACTION-612 -- Kai Scheppe to write a charter for mobileOK Pro TF by January -- due 2008-01-10 -- OPEN 15:08:04 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/612 15:08:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0049.html 15:08:50 kemp|plex has joined #bpwg 15:09:03 Kai: we want to make the tests repeatable 15:09:23 ... I proposed a format for that, which people in Boston said was OK 15:09:55 Jo: there were several comments: 15:10:04 ... the TF should refine its scope - which seems reasonable 15:10:09 Kai: and is part of the charter proposal 15:10:33 Jo: regarding changes to mobileOK basic, I would be reluctant to this 15:11:01 Kai: we don't intend to change mobileOK basic, but while reviewing it to integrate them in pro, we may find problems with them 15:11:20 Jo: dom raised a question on how much extension is intended 15:11:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jan/0050.html Dom's position 15:11:41 Jo: it would be useful that the scope of work answer these questions 15:11:50 Kai: that sounds reasonable, indeed 15:12:03 ... and this should help restrict the amount of work we're targeting 15:12:20 Jo: that's a concern that many share, I think 15:12:44 ... this relates to another comment that was made: we have 9 months left in our charter, which seems pretty limited for such a work 15:13:00 ... also, it's not clear whether the TF is also doing in mobileOK scheme and labels 15:13:16 Kai: our intent from what I understand is that we'll only focus on mobileOK Pro tests 15:13:37 Jo: another point I made is that mobileOK basic is a pre-requirement to mobileOK Pro 15:13:52 ... and we don't have that many sites that are mobileOK basic at this time 15:14:18 ... 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 15:14:26 ... as SeanO pointed by mail 15:14:44 Kai: I agree that we don't know about popularity 15:14:54 ... we asked whether this was worthwhile to continue and everybody says yes 15:14:59 s/says/said/ 15:15:11 ... I'm not sure why we're continuing this discussion 15:15:50 Jo: what I would be propose is to approve the charter, but asking the TF gets back to the group after the F2F 15:15:57 q+ to suggest a short TF charter 15:16:05 ack me 15:16:05 dom, you wanted to suggest a short TF charter 15:16:26 dom: first thing, I don't think everybody was OK in Boston going forward in MobileOK 15:16:50 ... more problematically, I think the TF should have a chance to show that mobileOK Pro is feasible, useful and needed 15:17:24 ... what I would suggest to answer the concerns is that we give the TF a short charter of 1 month or 2 15:17:35 ... with the goal to produce a Scope document 15:18:12 Kai: sure, but I'm getting a bit frustrated about the reputation of this, I thought I had all the green lights... 15:18:16 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 15:18:41 Dom: I don't want you to get frustrated, but it took us a lot of time to do mobileOK Basic 15:18:55 ... and afraid it might take a lot of time 15:19:01 edm has joined #bpwg 15:19:02 Kai: Well, it depends... 15:19:09 +Ed_Mitukiewicz 15:19:37 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 15:19:45 ... the challenge lies in setting brackets in the human tests we're adding to the mobileOK basic 15:20:28 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. 15:20:59 ... 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 15:21:50 Regrets+ AlanT 15:22:05 DKA: I think we're covering grounds that will be discussed next week 15:22:19 -DKA 15:22:21 ... let's see what the TF gets to propose on this 15:22:24 ack ed 15:22:38 Jo: that's why I'm proposing to approve the charter, and ask the TF to get back to us 15:22:44 DKA: +1 to that resolution 15:23:00 -Ed_Mitukiewicz 15:23:27 ACTION: Jo to summarize all the points that needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF 15:23:27 Created ACTION-635 - Summarize all the points that needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-02-07]. 15:23:28 +Ed_Mitukiewicz 15:23:31 i/dom: first thing, I would suggest/ScribeNick: francois 15:23:32 i/Regrets+ AlanT/ScribeNick: dom 15:23:56 q? 15:24:13 -Kai 15:25:05 (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 15:25:12 +1 to the resolution 15:25:19 +1 15:25:30 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 15:25:55 Topic: Good Standing status 15:26:20 Francois: we have switched a few participants of the group to "not in good standing" as decided 15:26:25 ... let me know if you find any mistake 15:26:36 ... it has already helped us clean the list of participants 15:26:39 + +1.859.261.aabb 15:26:41 ... it seems to be working well 15:26:42 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/GoodStandingTracker.html Good Standing Tracker 15:26:53 s/http:/-> http:/ 15:27:23 Topic: Korea F2F 15:27:42 Jo: BPWG meeting is on Mon and Tue, UWA on Tue and Thu, and DD on Thu and Fri 15:28:08 ... on Wed, there will be a workshop-like day with the korean mobile web forum 15:28:09 -> http://www.w3c.or.kr/venue-200803/ Logistics for Seoul 15:28:25 zakim, aabb is Raymond 15:28:25 +Raymond; got it 15:28:36 Topic: Zaragoza Update 15:29:08 Nacho: the person in charge of the organization wasn't available this week - I should have more news on this by Monday 15:29:10 +??P9 15:29:15 ... and will forward that to the group list 15:29:27 Topic: BPWG blog 15:29:46 Francois: we're planning to upgrade the BPWG blog template 15:29:59 ... it currently is pretty ugly and not mobileOK 15:30:05 ... I'm working on revamping it 15:30:30 Topic: mobileOK 15:30:33 ack me 15:30:56 -SeanP 15:31:23 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 15:31:39 ... I guess main decision was to make a better plan which I agreed to address 15:34:09 -Raymond 15:35:21 Topic: Objects in mobileOK 15:35:32 http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/ 15:35:38 http://www.w3.org/2008/01/object-mwbp-test/results.php 15:35:58 Dom: I wrote a set of 4 test cases, the goal being to record how the browsers of the wild world interact with objects 15:36:06 ... we have 13 records 15:36:35 matt has joined #bpwg 15:36:39 q? 15:36:53 ... when the type attribute is set and set to something that the browser doesn't recognize, it won't try to download the resource 15:37:06 ... with the noticeable exception of Opera and a few others 15:37:33 ... I made sure the tests reported what I wanted ;) 15:37:46 ... My taste is that we enough tests 15:38:03 ... I have no idea what a good sample would be, so I would say we have one! 15:38:29 ... We have enough proof that there's enough browsers that are not dumb about these objects. 15:38:43 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0096.html Call for tests 15:38:53 Jo: do the test, people, please! 15:38:57 ScribeNick: dom 15:39:09 Topic: Content Transformation Task Force 15:39:14 Francois: we're making progress 15:39:28 ... I've just had a long discussion with Yves Lafon, our HTTP expert 15:39:38 ... will send a report of that discussion by email 15:39:55 i/Dom: I wrote/ScribeNick: Francois/ 15:40:00 Topic: Checker Task force 15:40:11 Jo: beta release is imminent 15:40:18 ... I think the group needs to approve this 15:40:35 i/Francois: we're making progress/ScribeNick: dom/ 15:40:48 ScribeNick: francois 15:40:52 ScribeNick: dom 15:41:00 ... I wonder what criteria we want to set, esp. whether we need to decide now what the exit criteria for beta is 15:41:03 ScribeNick: francois 15:41:28 dom: the beta is imminent. We have managed to do many good progress. It's much more complete than the alpha. 15:41:37 ... In terms of entry and exit criteria: 15:41:56 ... * entry: all of a mobileOK is covered, but it has not all be tested 15:42:26 ... * exit from the beta: needs to be decided by the group, but could be decided when the beta is out 15:42:46 ... This also relates to the on-going work on the mobileOK test suite 15:42:53 ... It should not delay the beta 15:42:56 btw, CTIC is going to drop the first version of the Dev Manual this weekend to the TF mailing list 15:43:28 Jo: nacho, what's your point of view on going to beta? 15:43:37 ... do you think we need to be sure that all tests are covered? 15:43:50 i/Jo: nacho, what's/ScribeNick: dom/ 15:43:51 Nacho: I think we should it to the public together with the developer manual 15:44:05 ... maybe we need another chapter on the testing part 15:44:22 Jo: any other view about going to beta? 15:44:41 ... if nobody objects to it, 15:45:12 s/we should it to the public/we should release it to the public/ 15:45:25 ... and if nobody thinks that we should have a formal testing before going to beta 15:45:38 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Checker TF may declare beta when it thinks it is ready 15:45:43 +1 15:45:43 ... I propose we mandate the TF to make the decision to move to beta itself 15:45:46 +1 15:45:46 q+ 15:45:48 +1 15:45:52 q- 15:45:52 +1 15:45:53 RESOLUTION: Checker TF may declare beta when it thinks it is ready 15:45:54 +1 15:45:56 1+ 15:46:26 Topic: mobile accessibility 15:46:43 Jo: we have time for more points than the ones you specifically raised 15:47:03 AlanC: I sent a list of specific points in my mail 15:47:08 ... has anyone looked at those? 15:47:10 Jo: I have 15:47:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Jan/0102.html 15:47:37 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080129/mwbp-wcag20.html#ACCESS_KEYS 15:49:02 Alan: for each BP, I try to explain how a given BP can help making a page more accessible 15:49:12 ... although I'm not sure this group can have much input on that aspect 15:49:36 Jo: generally, it's more on the mapping from WCAG 2 to BP that this group can comment on 15:49:51 ... but it would be good to review the document in a step by step way 15:50:16 ... clearly we won't have many technical comments on that part, but we still have to review it 15:50:52 ... I don't have much comments on this, except some editorial ones that I'll send offline 15:52:54 Alan: [presenting autorefresh] 15:53:31 Jo: a note that in BP, we only ask to be able to stop it 15:53:59 ... the 2 guidelines don't completely overlap, so you basically need to do both to conform to WCAG and BP 15:54:44 Alan: I propose that we get a look at the document going the other way 15:54:55 Jo: maybe we should actually go through all the BPs now 15:55:07 Alan: good idea 15:55:36 ... AVOID_FREE_TEXT can be useful for accessibility, but doesn't help directly for WCAG conformance 15:56:37 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 15:57:20 Alan: I don't think the group will be able to comment on the WCAG2 conformance... 15:57:32 Jo: moving on BACKGROUND_IMAGE_READABILITY 15:57:45 Alan: not covered in WCAG, but it ought to be 15:58:02 @@@: I think the WCAG document is more stringent on this than BP, isn't it? 15:58:35 Alan: WCAG is much more detailed and sophisticated given how much expertise and time they've spent on it 15:58:41 ... but it's not always more stringent 15:58:48 s/@@@/Adam/ 15:59:43 Adam: it would be useful to say how much increment you would need to add to get WCAG conformant (?) 16:00:21 Jo: it sounds reading the document that applying the BPs don't you help so much 16:00:38 ... we may want to be careful of the impression it gives, which may be counterproductive 16:01:05 Alan: the first BPs don't have much relevance, but the ones further down do 16:01:16 Jo: maybe we need to revisit the order in which we present them :) 16:01:42 Alan: BALANCE is another example of something that help, but isn't included in WCAG because too vague 16:01:53 ... same for CENTRAL_MEANING 16:02:48 ... CLARITY (which was in WCAG 1.0) was replaced by a reading-level guideline for the same reason 16:03:15 Jo: it would be useful to explain what "innate reading level " means beforehand 16:03:37 nacho has left #bpwg 16:03:48 Alan: it relates to "age", roughly speaking 16:04:14 Jo: I think you might want to link to an explanation from the phrase in the 1st paragraph 16:04:55 Alan: COLOR_CONTRAST is rather similar to the WCAG 1.0 CP, but with a different reasoning for it 16:05:22 ... to meet WCAG 2.0, you need to be a bit more careful than what the BP says 16:06:07 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 16:06:23 Alan: I'm not sure, that's a good point; I'll check it up 16:06:51 Jo: same for other phrases of this type (e.g. "low vision", ...) 16:07:20 ... for people that are not expert in the field, it really helps to use the same terminology as much as possible 16:08:21 Alan: another point: WCAG 2.0 has an algorithm for detecting proper contrast, which may not be appropriate for BP 16:08:42 Jo: we had that originally, but dropped it for some reasons 16:09:10 Alan: the algorithm might be worth including in BP 2.0 16:09:20 Jo: it could actually be a useful input to the mobileOK Pro TF 16:09:56 ... it is more generally speaking that mobileOK Pro will change the picture of this document quite dramatically 16:10:08 Alan: indeed 16:10:32 Jo: so let's use this as input to the Pro meeting next week - as you're going there 16:11:17 ... 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" 16:11:52 Alan: 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? 16:11:58 s/Alan/Adam/ 16:12:04 Jo: that's very likely, indeed 16:12:45 Alan: CONTROL_LABELLING was in WCAG 1.0, but was moved as a part of 4.1.2 in WCAG 2.0 16:13:00 ... so it isn't sufficient 16:13:39 kemp|plex has left #bpwg 16:13:51 ... idem for CONTROL_POSITION 16:15:08 Jo: ERROR_MESSAGES helps accessibility-wise, but doesn't given you WCAG points 16:15:15 s/given/give/ 16:16:21 Alan: IMAGE_MAPS is no added_benefit 16:16:43 Jo: when we move BP from PR to REC, can we take into account some of the comments from Alan? 16:16:44 q+ 16:16:47 ack me 16:17:35 dom: I think it's editorial, so it shouldn't blow out anything, but need to check before I can say something 16:18:32 Alan: the relation is not wrong, but not very helpful 16:20:04 Jo: when you say "When image maps are not delivered", you mean when they are not present in the document, right? 16:20:14 Alan: right 16:21:07 Jo: moving on LINK_TARGET_ID, this one actually helps compliant! 16:21:16 ... we need to move it up at the top of the list :) 16:22:34 ... 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 16:22:49 Alan: currently they are in alphabetical order 16:23:50 ... but the intro text make a per BP list depending on the level targeted 16:24:29 Jo: let's stop here, and start again from MEASURES on the next call 16:25:23 Topic: BP2 16:25:29 Jo: Bryan isn't on the call 16:25:40 ... we still haven't received much input on what can be put in the document 16:26:00 ... we have an open issue on this 16:26:16 ... please put some thoughts on this 16:26:32 ISSUE-229? 16:26:32 ISSUE-229 -- Scope of mobile web applications best practices -- OPEN 16:26:32 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/229 16:27:18 Jo: it is essential that we have a list of references as starting point 16:27:35 ... only suggestion so far comes from the Center for the Handheld Web 16:28:18 Topic: Cannes F2F 16:28:34 Francois: we'll be welcome there, but it is a bit early to request a slot there 16:28:59 Jo: we'll have the usual discussions about overlap between groups, but we can do among chairs and team 16:29:10 s/discussions/haggling/ 16:29:28 ACTION-630? 16:29:28 ACTION-630 -- François Daoust to check with organizers of the TPAC in France in October 2008 -- due 2008-01-31 -- OPEN 16:29:28 http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/630 16:29:43 ack me 16:30:13 close ACTION-630 16:30:13 ACTION-630 Check with organizers of the TPAC in France in October 2008 closed 16:30:50 Jason has left #bpwg 16:30:50 -Jason 16:30:50 bye 16:30:51 -Dom 16:30:51 -jo 16:30:52 bye 16:30:52 -martinJ 16:30:53 -adam 16:30:54 MartinJ has left #bpwg 16:30:54 -francois 16:30:55 -Ed_Mitukiewicz 16:30:56 -achuter 16:30:59 Jo: thanks Alan for leading us through the document 16:30:59 -abel_ 16:31:00 MWI_BPWG()10:00AM has ended 16:31:02 Attendees were Jason, +20788aaaa, francois, jo, adam, abel_, nacho, miguel, DKA, Dom, SeanP, Kai, martinJ, Ed_Mitukiewicz, +1.859.261.aabb, Raymond, achuter 16:31:07 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:31:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html dom 16:31:08 abel_ has left #bpwg 16:31:10 Zakim, bye 16:31:10 Zakim has left #bpwg 16:31:11 thanks Dom for scribing! 16:31:37 d/haggling/discussion/ 16:33:00 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:33:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html francois 16:33:27 Chair: Jo 16:33:53 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:33:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html francois 16:36:50 i/dom: first thing, I don't think everybody/ScribeNick: francois 16:36:53 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:36:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html francois 16:37:47 Regrets+ Shahriar 16:37:49 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:37:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-minutes.html francois 16:43:08 RRSAgent, bye 16:43:08 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-actions.rdf : 16:43:08 ACTION: Jo to summarize all the points that needs answers from mobileOK Pro TF [1] 16:43:08 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/31-bpwg-irc#T15-23-27 16:43:13 zakim, bye