14:47:39 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 14:47:39 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-irc 14:47:41 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:47:41 Zakim has joined #bpwg 14:47:43 Zakim, this will be BPWG 14:47:43 ok, trackbot-ng; I see MWI_BPWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes 14:47:44 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 14:47:44 Date: 13 March 2008 14:48:25 Regrets: AlanT, Shah, Heiko, kemp, Magnus, Nacho, Jeff, Tony, Jason, Robert, Adam, Francois, Chaals 14:48:39 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0032.html 14:48:45 Chair: Jo 14:48:58 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:48:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html dom 14:52:36 yeliz has joined #bpwg 14:54:37 abel has joined #bpwg 14:55:48 Regrets+ Murari 14:56:34 srowen has joined #bpwg 14:58:38 miguel has joined #bpwg 14:59:05 MartinJ has joined #bpwg 14:59:13 MWI_BPWG()11:00AM has now started 14:59:19 + +0777613aaaa 14:59:57 zakim, aaaa is me 14:59:57 +MartinJ; got it 15:00:12 +dom 15:00:15 zakim, code? 15:00:15 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 15:00:53 +jo 15:00:55 Zakim, dom is me 15:00:55 +miguel; got it 15:01:04 +Dom 15:01:16 +Sean_Owen 15:01:25 zakim, list attendees? 15:01:25 I don't understand your question, dom. 15:01:27 zakim, list attendees 15:01:27 As of this point the attendees have been +0777613aaaa, MartinJ, jo, miguel, Dom, Sean_Owen 15:01:28 PhilA has joined #bpwg 15:01:43 Zakim, abel is with me 15:01:43 +abel; got it 15:01:52 drooks has joined #bpwg 15:02:13 +Kai 15:02:23 +Phil_Archer 15:02:26 SeanP has joined #bpwg 15:02:41 edm has joined #bpwg 15:02:50 +Ed_Mitukiewicz 15:03:19 +??P15 15:03:41 zakim, ??P15 is yelzi 15:03:41 +yelzi; got it 15:03:41 Kai has joined #bpwg 15:03:41 zakim, mute me 15:03:42 Phil_Archer should now be muted 15:03:43 +drooks 15:03:50 zakim, mute me 15:03:50 sorry, yeliz, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:03:52 zakim, yelzi is really yeliz 15:03:52 +yeliz; got it 15:04:01 zakim, mute yeliz 15:04:01 yeliz should now be muted 15:04:03 zakim, mute me 15:04:03 yeliz was already muted, yeliz 15:04:12 +SeanP 15:04:16 :) 15:04:33 zakim, list attendees 15:04:33 As of this point the attendees have been +0777613aaaa, MartinJ, jo, miguel, Dom, Sean_Owen, abel, Kai, Phil_Archer, Ed_Mitukiewicz, drooks, yeliz, SeanP 15:05:11 Bryan has joined #bpwg 15:05:12 regrets+ DKA 15:05:16 +Bryan_Sullivan 15:05:31 ScribeNick: srowen 15:06:11 jo: first is feedback from Seoul 15:06:12 Topic: Seoul F2F Briefing 15:06:22 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0027.html Seoul Briefing 15:06:41 jo: francois assembled a summary, above, and we got a lot of work done 15:06:46 mostly focused on transformation guidelines 15:07:01 put out a new draft just before the call -- still many editor's notes 15:07:05 made substantial progress of BP2 15:07:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080313 Updated editors draft of CT guidelines 15:07:51 jo: anyone have specific questions about seoul briefing? 15:08:12 we also had a successful Wednesday workshop with Korean community, very productive 15:08:25 have not communicated message about mobileOK and DDC 15:08:30 it seems to have been misunderstood 15:08:44 the place to do it may be mobileOK Scheme, which chaals has volunteered to drive 15:08:55 Topic: June / October F2F Updates 15:09:18 jo: zaragoza venue is off, due to difficulties coordinating a venue 15:09:29 will move to a different location, but keep the date 15:09:43 Dom's offered to host at Sophia-Antipolis at W3C offices 15:09:44 -Phil_Archer 15:09:51 dom: won't have definite answer before tomorrow 15:10:17 if anyone else has a proposed location, please do 15:10:37 needs to be in Europe this time 15:10:49 q+ 15:10:55 jo: anyone on call have comments, offers related to the June F2F? 15:11:04 ack k 15:11:08 Kai: as a backup, we could do it in Darmstadt, could probably arrange a few rooms 15:11:19 no visits to the european space agency this time :) 15:11:33 (srowen: Eurodisney?) 15:11:47 jo: thanks Kai 15:12:00 (srowen: Paris isn't far!) 15:12:19 dom: need to make up our mind on date of meeting 15:12:26 early in the week or late in the week, joint meeting with other groups? 15:12:56 jo: no strong preferences; DDWG will be out of charter by then 15:13:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0002.html 15:13:36 jo: will return to OMA advertising guidelines later 15:13:43 Topic: BP2 15:13:58 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20080305 Latest BP2 editors draft 15:14:11 Bryan: latest version is ... 15:14:27 ... the March 5 revision, yes 15:14:37 captures revisions from Seoul, and other items I picked up on in the meeting 15:14:42 general editorial cleanup, etc. 15:15:12 need to review changes to external references 15:15:22 expect to have a new draft before the next call 15:15:26 jo: anything to notice here? 15:16:02 matt has joined #bpwg 15:16:06 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080213&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20080305 Diff Since Feb 13 version 15:16:16 Bryan: easier to use now. Added text about convergence, multiple views, multiple devices 15:16:46 can anyone define the top-left navigation problem for me? 15:17:40 difference between transport and application compression techniques... something I picked up on... 15:17:46 there are implications to best practice techniques 15:18:28 jo: Kai, the top-left nav problem was your issue from BP1? 15:19:05 Kai: yes, the issue is just that you don't want to be confronted with navigation immediately, but rather content you want 15:19:23 how to get around this? not sure there is an answer. It is a paradigm 15:19:37 jo: why is this different from BP1? 15:19:52 Kai: covered in the sense that we said, put in a nav bar, but not sure that was a sophisticated solution 15:20:05 jo: does that answer your issue Bryan? 15:20:17 first screen needs to be more than just navigation? 15:20:57 Bryan: sites should present a balance of navigation and content -- I get the general idea 15:21:07 is this a problem where we can recommend "how to do it" 15:21:19 we should avoid naming problems without prescribing solutions 15:21:23 (srowen: +1 to that) 15:21:39 Bryan: I can draft "stay away from" suggestions, if that's a good start 15:22:02 Kai: don't we risk running up against a paradigm that is hard to 'break'? 15:22:05 simply hard to get around 15:22:27 until we have content adaptation, not much we can do 15:22:50 jo: first step is for bryan to be able to write a clearer placeholder, then we action someone to write a more complete BP 15:22:58 Bryan: I have enough understanding to write a placeholder 15:23:23 jo: I note contributions from yeliz et al. on AJAX... 15:23:33 (srowen: years of practice) 15:23:33 zakim, unmute yeliz 15:23:33 yeliz should no longer be muted 15:23:54 yeliz: ... and contributions on ARIA (sp?) 15:24:22 yeliz: this came up in education/outreach meeting, because now WCAG recommends it 15:24:29 maybe useful to BP2, just soliciting opinions 15:24:47 jo: can we action someone to look through and recommend what is relevant? 15:24:56 yeliz: I can do it 15:25:16 ACTION: yeliz to review ARIA to see what could be relevant to BP2 15:25:16 Created ACTION-712 - Review ARIA to see what could be relevant to BP2 [on Yeliz Yesilada - due 2008-03-20]. 15:25:34 jo: jonathan's contribution is fairly big 15:25:52 who's an AJAX expert that can review? 15:26:03 (srowen: I am inclined to volunteer Adam) 15:26:13 zakim, mute yeliz 15:26:13 yeliz should now be muted 15:26:16 Bryan: haven't had a chance to review this, but have reviewed AJAX resources in general 15:27:07 ACTION: Owen to review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do so 15:27:07 Created ACTION-713 - Review the AJAX contribution or ask Adam to do so [on Sean Owen - due 2008-03-20]. 15:27:08 srowen: I'll take an action to ask Adam about the AJAX doc, or else review myself 15:27:23 Bryan: would like people to look at current draft, particularly highlighted sections 15:28:09 jo: anything else on BP2? 15:28:17 Topic: MMA Advertizing guidelines 15:28:17 jo: next, OMA mobile ad guidelines 15:28:37 s/OMA/MMA 15:28:44 (srowen: oops) 15:28:58 dom: MMA has contacted us for feedback on guidelines 15:29:21 Sean and Jo noted some issues/questions 15:29:48 jo: anyone else have feedback? 15:29:58 q+ 15:30:09 jo: sean you were amenable? 15:30:16 srowen: yes no major conflicts, or even modest ones 15:30:17 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0018.html Sean's comments on MMA guidelines 15:30:17 ack bryan 15:30:22 jo: just the PNG issue, right 15:30:26 I glanced at it and didn't see anything bad, but couldn't go much in depth on it. 15:30:31 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Mar/0019.html Jo's comments on MMA guidelines 15:30:49 Bryan: looks valuable. the reference to WAP1/2, while historical, is still somewhat necessary 15:30:59 maybe we can find a different way to refer to XHTML-on-a-small-screen 15:31:05 but in principle people know what WAP means 15:31:13 wouldn't propose to remove it 15:31:28 achuter has joined #bpwg 15:31:41 jo: maybe note that WAP2 is "a" term for the web, not a primary term 15:31:58 in the european draft, there were references to BPs and mobileOK 15:32:08 they don't appear in the good practices section 15:32:11 we could ask them to be restored 15:32:26 +??P0 15:32:31 zakim, mute me 15:32:31 sorry, achuter, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:32:42 zakim, ??P0 is me 15:32:42 +achuter; got it 15:32:42 the reference is still at the end of the doc, but missing from the middle of the document 15:32:47 zakim, mute me 15:32:47 achuter should now be muted 15:33:04 jo: dom how much more do we need to do on this? 15:33:13 dom: happy to "push the button" 15:33:20 would like someone to draft the response 15:33:32 jo: I will draft it 15:34:05 ACTION: Jo to draft review of MMA Advertising 15:34:05 Created ACTION-714 - Draft review of MMA Advertising [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-20]. 15:34:42 srowen: I suggested a few new practices for the MMA doc: 15:34:43 The clickthrough should result in at most one redirect before the user 15:34:43 reaches the landing page. 15:34:43 "Crush" PNG and GIF images to reduce size as much as possible. 15:34:43 Make the ads *non* cacheable on the assumption that they are generally 15:34:43 viewed once and rotated, so it would waste cache space. 15:34:49 anyone interested in it? 15:34:57 dom: they may or may not be interested, but sure, can send those over 15:35:35 jo: will weave this in along with a suggestion to reference mobileOK, BP 15:35:41 we should welcome *global* guidelines from the MMA 15:36:01 jo: time for reports from task forces 15:36:10 Topic: Content transformation Task force report 15:36:19 jo: Content Transformation TF made lots of progress at the F2F 15:36:25 dom has left #bpwg 15:36:29 dom has joined #bpwg 15:36:49 many sections are awaiting contribution 15:36:54 otherwise document continues to evolve 15:36:57 any questions? 15:36:59 Topic: mobileOK basic checker Task Force 15:38:01 srowen: a steady stream of enhancements and fixes 15:38:45 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2008Mar/0015.html Dom's analysis on HTML validity 15:39:16 now is the time to review the code, output 15:39:21 jo: how about that DTD issue? 15:40:03 +Phil_Archer 15:40:08 zakim, mute me 15:40:08 Phil_Archer should now be muted 15:40:10 yes, unable to validate some docs according to stated doctype, per mobielOK, like HTML 4 15:40:23 jo: this entails a change to mobileOK if we can't implement it 15:40:34 srowen: could treat it as a known issue 15:41:04 dom: HTML 4 docs will be invalid as HTML 4, or XHTML MP, so it doesn't really change the scope of mobileOK to add/remove test 15:41:13 jo: we do have other doc changes anyway 15:41:40 dom: as an aside, have these changes been integrated into a new draft? 15:41:42 srowen: no 15:41:48 jo: let's raise as an issue to bookmark it 15:41:51 dom: will raise the issue 15:42:02 DKA has joined #bpwg 15:42:45 q+ 15:43:06 srowen: note, we'll always encounter docs that can't be validated -- unknown DTD 15:43:15 so to what extent do we need an exception for HTML 4? 15:43:22 jo: let's discuss in an ISSUE 15:43:24 ack k 15:43:37 Kai: we're not dealing with HTML 4 docs in the first place...? 15:44:11 jo: let's discuss in an ISSUE 15:44:39 may wish to liaise with Korea, to communicate that now is the time to review the mobileOK implementation 15:45:05 jo: time for mobileOK Pro TF 15:45:09 Kai: in waiting mode 15:45:32 i/jo: time for/Topic: mobileOK Pro Task Force/ 15:45:37 ACTION: jo to point out to Korean members the time frames remaining on checker 15:45:38 Created ACTION-715 - Point out to Korean members the time frames remaining on checker [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-03-20]. 15:45:38 will need to discuss subjective nature of tests, as we have before 15:45:57 may need to change tests to be more objective, testable 15:46:03 but won't be able to get around this entirely 15:46:10 can't expect a "checker" 15:46:22 because this is specifically the tests that can't be machine "checked" 15:46:39 i/srowen: note,/ ISSUE-240 created/ 15:46:44 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:46:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/13-bpwg-minutes.html dom 15:46:51 jo: lots of "trains in the station" right now but yes we need to get on with this 15:47:07 my concern is that accessibility folks have been through this, with changes between WCAG1 and WCAG2 15:47:29 should this be turned over to WCAG to comment on problems of subjectivity? 15:47:43 achuter: WCAG is probably too busy right now 15:48:22 jo: alan, are you happy with the level of subjectivity? 15:48:35 achuter: no, people will take advantage of subjectivity 15:48:42 q+ 15:48:58 ack s 15:49:28 q+ 15:49:50 srowen: WCAG / accessibility is required by law in some cases, not mobileOK Pro 15:50:03 so incentive to engage the standard, but low-ball it, is not as big an issue 15:50:16 jo: true, but may become a contractual requirement in some cases, and that's desirable 15:50:17 ack k 15:50:36 q+ to say that if mobileOK Pro is going to be useful, it needs to be credible and consistent 15:50:39 q+ 15:50:42 Kai: we're interested in making testers come up with the same answer as much as possible 15:50:55 yes, no legal requirement, so this may not be as vital an issue for mobileOK Pro 15:51:36 is it not enough to just say that if a reputable tester certifies mobileOK Pro compliance, isn't that enough? 15:51:42 ack d 15:51:42 dom, you wanted to say that if mobileOK Pro is going to be useful, it needs to be credible and consistent 15:52:25 dom: two independent testers with mobileOK Pro doc and a website need to come up with the same answer, otherwise mobileOK Pro means little 15:52:44 W3C board warned about subjectivity problem from the outset 15:52:51 we need to have a good story on this point 15:53:13 ack me 15:53:21 +??P11 15:53:26 zakim, p11 is me 15:53:26 sorry, DKA, I do not recognize a party named 'p11' 15:53:32 zakim, ??p11 is me 15:53:32 +DKA; got it 15:53:36 PhilA: this is where POWDER helps 15:53:37 s/W3C board/W3C Advisory Board/ 15:53:40 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2006Aug/0182.html Advisory Board comments on subjectivity 15:54:02 -MartinJ 15:54:02 what this overlooks is that an individual (content provider, etc.) claims conformance 15:54:15 -SeanP 15:54:18 +MartinJ 15:54:21 the question reduces to whether you trust the tester's judgment 15:54:36 q+ 15:54:49 q+ to say that mobileOK Pro will then heavily reduce the value of the mobileOK brand 15:54:58 I think it's OK that two people may come up with different answers 15:55:06 POWDER helps you sort out which answer you believe 15:55:28 q? 15:55:31 ack jo 15:55:52 ack do 15:55:52 dom, you wanted to say that mobileOK Pro will then heavily reduce the value of the mobileOK brand 15:56:00 jo: I follow the logic, but your average Joe doesn't know the difference between reputable and bad testers, does this not punt the problem? 15:56:16 -MartinJ 15:56:31 dom: contracts might specify "tester X says you are mobileOK Pro" 15:56:43 this might restrict the usability of mobileOK Pro 15:56:45 -Bryan_Sullivan 15:56:52 and reduces value, brand 15:57:01 we have a pretty good story on mobileOK Basic, pretty clear idea 15:57:04 +MartinJ 15:57:05 means passing the checker 15:57:17 q+ to ask how the brand would be devalued if somebody claims mobileOK Pro, but may, in some testers view, fail on a point or two? Is that then less or more valuable content in mobile context than content that is mobileOK Basic? 15:57:29 afraid this extra complexity in mobileOK Pro may harm the brand 15:57:33 ack k 15:57:33 Kai, you wanted to ask how the brand would be devalued if somebody claims mobileOK Pro, but may, in some testers view, fail on a point or two? Is that then less or more valuable 15:57:36 ... content in mobile context than content that is mobileOK Basic? 15:57:43 Kai: understand the point about devaluing the brand, but this isn't black-and-white 15:57:57 q+ to draw an analogy 15:58:01 someone's gone to the trouble of submitting content to testing, 15:58:11 two tester may disagree, usually on a small point 15:58:26 ack me 15:58:26 PhilA, you wanted to draw an analogy 15:58:36 PhilA: don't think Dom and I will agree on this 15:59:07 some subjective assessments have value -- Academy Awards, etc. 15:59:25 (subjectivity through a central authority is ok, indeed) 15:59:52 guidelines and examples can lead people to roughly the same conclusion, even if it's not deterministic 15:59:54 -drooks 16:00:11 dom: yes, if a central authority exists, this is not a problem 16:00:19 but Dom's Academy Awards, for example, wouldn't be of much use 16:00:32 zakim, mute me 16:00:32 Phil_Archer should now be muted 16:00:43 if we have multiple assessments from multiple authorities, it confuses the mark 16:00:52 jo: let's take this to the lsit 16:00:56 q+ 16:01:00 s/lsit/list/ 16:01:30 ack k 16:01:54 Kai: if we decide this must be a very steadfast result, what effect does that have on BPs? 16:01:59 then that implies they have no value 16:02:43 we can say all we want about what it takes to be mobileOK Pro, but you're saying that if it's untestable, it's useless 16:02:50 then why are we writing the BPs? 16:03:09 dom: didn't mean "worthless", but referring to problems with the brand 16:03:46 Kai: need to look at potential effects on BPs as a whole 16:04:02 zakim, unmute me 16:04:02 Phil_Archer should no longer be muted 16:04:24 PhilA: if we don't define mobileOK Pro, somebody else will, so should be the W3C 16:04:47 zakim, mute me 16:04:47 Phil_Archer should now be muted 16:04:59 (I think I could buy the idea of having a set of "BP reference tests", if don't call it mobileOK Pro) 16:05:10 s/if/if we/ 16:05:17 Oh alrreight thenm 16:05:32 sOh alrreight thenm/oh alright then/ 16:05:47 ACTION: Archer to summarise discussion on Pro subjectivity and to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the subject 16:05:47 Created ACTION-716 - Summarise discussion on Pro subjectivity and to get ball rolling for a PROPOSED RESOLUTION on the subject [on Phil Archer - due 2008-03-20]. 16:05:56 OK 16:06:17 jo: latest draft of accessibilitiy document is next 16:06:26 Topic: Accessibility document 16:06:53 -Phil_Archer 16:07:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080305/ Updated editors draft of BP-WCAG doc 16:07:23 PhilA has left #bpwg 16:07:23 achuter: last week, new draft was published 16:07:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/changelog.html Changelog 16:07:26 an incremental update 16:07:59 no major changes to point out or discuss -- work is progressing 16:08:19 jo: yeliz made some contributions 16:08:20 zakim, unmute yeliz 16:08:20 yeliz should no longer be muted 16:08:42 yeliz: version 1 document is almost complete and sent to Alan last week, for incorporation 16:08:57 already incorporated 16:09:13 jo: any other comments on these drafts? 16:09:36 zakim, mute yeliz 16:09:36 yeliz should now be muted 16:09:51 jo: we have only reviewed one doc so far, in short 16:10:00 q+ 16:10:05 any other business to discuss? 16:10:05 ack me 16:10:15 Topic: AOB 16:10:28 dom: we collected some stats on mobileOK checker 16:10:32 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0009.html 16:10:39 shows why pages fail 16:10:46 that is worth having a look at 16:10:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Mar/0003.html 16:11:08 also, mobileOK Basic checker test suite, which shows which test cases are currently passing and why 16:11:19 it is evidence that the checker is implementing mobileOK Basic 16:11:33 jo: Those statistics were pretty interesting 16:11:47 wondering what level of conclusion we can draw from it 16:12:08 dom: surprised in number of valid pages with XHTML Basic DTD 16:12:25 in XHTML 1.0 you can use lang attribute, but need to use xml:lang in XHTML Basic 16:12:28 source of many failures 16:12:48 maybe DTD validation isn't the best way to ensure quality markup 16:12:57 maybe an issue for mobileOK Basic 2.0 16:13:02 -achuter 16:13:09 jo: maybe water under the bridge -- difficult to "undo" that decision 16:13:51 will this be an obstacle to adoption, if people are failing for trivial reasons? 16:14:04 dom: 4-5% of sites are mobileOK Basic 16:14:29 some more fail with only one error 16:14:48 jo: some selection bias -- people using the checker are already interested in conformance 16:15:16 (srowen: will point out that mobileOK Basic is, in retrospect, definitely in no sense "too easy") 16:15:54 jo: not sure quite how to address this 16:16:03 dom can you give periodic updates on these statistics? 16:16:15 dom: can't promise, but can probably get them again at some point 16:16:30 q+ 16:16:42 jo: will probably need to proceed with 1.0 as is 16:16:59 q+ 16:17:01 Kai: I do keep getting feedback on things that can't be fulfilled because of marketing, etc. requirements 16:17:01 ack k 16:17:20 ack d 16:17:22