Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

26 Jun 2008


See also: IRC log


+jeffs, DKA, francois, heiko, SeanP, miguel, scott, Dom, achuter, yeliz
Jo, Adam, EdM, Kai, Murari, Bryan, Aaron, Pontus, Chaals, rob, Soonho, abel, MartinJ, Yeliz, AlanTai
francois, Dan


DKA: The agenda was a bag of topics not necessarily in the good order.
... First thing I'd like to address today is the rechartering

Rechartering of the group

<dom> ACTION-776?

<trackbot> ACTION-776 -- Fran├žois Daoust to start the rechartering process -- due 2008-06-23 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/776

DKA: To switch CT from informative to normative

Francois: new charter should go to the AC on Monday. Review period takes us to July the 28th.
... Link to new charter forthcoming:

<francois> Updated charter to review

CT Guidelines

DKA: OK, what's happening on the CT guidelines

Francois: We had a call on Tuesday. Problem is the following: We have one remaining issue left from f2f where we made "great" progress.
... The remaining issue will best be addressed once we see all the changes to the document.\
... We need an updated document.
... The problem is that Jo is so lazy^h^h^h^hbusy that he can't update the document.
... Don't think we can resolve the remaining issue before we get the updated draft.

DKA: Any indication from Jo on the draft eta?

Francois: Within weeks.

<dom> jeffs, the remaining issue is ISSUE-242

<dom> ISSUE-242?

<trackbot> ISSUE-242 -- User expression of persistent and session preferences -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/242

Francois: Jo should prioritize mobile web best practices 1.0 and mobileOK basic tests ahead ot CT.

DKA: Agree with that priority but it's crucial to get out a LC draft of the CT document ASAP.

Francois: Yes, but the real goal is to publish the Last Call by end of July. If possible sooner would be better.

DKA: I would prefer sooner.

DKA: Any way we can speed it up?

Francois: We need to have some discussion on the mailing list on the remaining issues - will start soon.

DKA: any other comment on CT?

ETSI liaison

DKA: Who wants to talk about that?
... I think Jo and I took a joint action to do something about that
... on the last SC call
... I think that Jo and I need to discuss that a little bit before we can come back to the group
... Let's move on

<dom> ISSUE: Respond to ETSI liaison

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-267 - Respond to ETSI liaison ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/267/edit .

Accessibility document

DKA: Alan issued a new draft on Tuesday, thanks.

alan: There's a changelog

<dom> Alan's mail on Mobile accessibility document, Version 24 June 2008

DKA: The main topics we've talked about during the F2F have been taken cared of, I think.
... You scoped down the together document to a mere note.
... You moved the empty stuff to the end of the pages.
... Would you like to call out any specific thing?

<jeffs> should have some form of audience section

alan: The audience section. What do other people think about it?
... It's gone, should I put it back?

DKA: I don't think it's worth bothering with it right now.

<jeffs> IMHO shold explicitly state audience, even if very short statement

alan: the audience is really the same as the one that would normally read WCAG and MWBP.

DKA: I think we should not worry about that issue for this draft.
... I'd rather we focus on the content

<jeffs> IMHO all such docs should explicitly state audience from which they proceed, even if very short statement

DKA: Eventually, it needs an audience back, I agree.

alan: let's go through my points. Francois replied he thought the Audience section should go.
... There's another section entitled "Managing Overlapping requirements".
... "Benefits" could be clearer

DKA: francois?

francois: would love to see "benefits" in the title, but can't find any cool title with "benefit" in it, so I suggest we just leave it as it is

DKA: yes, agree, let's leave it as it is

alan: How to use this document. There are links and a table.
... Francois mentioned the title are too long. I think it's right. We may use the short titles instead of the long titles.

DKA: I think we should use the bullet list for now.

alan: OK, this can be changed really easily.

DKA: From the purpose of clarity, the table is an optimization.

<DKA> Alan - it's a nice table!

DKA: but from the purpose of clarity, we should have the text. It's more important for the reader.
... Or we could keep both.

<jeffs> is it broken? if not, leave it alone

DKA: I'm erring on the side of "If we can afford not to make changes to this document before publishing, let's not make changes"
... So my point was: Alan, you can keep both, I'd prefer the text

alan: Then, there's a section called "Differences between WCAG and MWBP" which was renamed

<jeffs> if focus of msg is diffs, call it that

alan: to state that WCAG uses priorities and level where MWBP don't

DKA: We could say "Structural differences between WCAG and MWBP"
... because there are lots of other differences

alan: Then, Francois' comments.
... "Relationship" disappeared from the title of the document.
... At one time, it was because it was to be about WCAG and MWBP together.

DKA: I don't know that we have to put "Relationship" in there. It's implied

<dom> (good point, indeed)

francois: Without "Relationship", when you reference the document or list it somewhere, it seems to be the fusion of both rec

DKA: OK, I'm happy to put "Relationship" back

Alan: OK
... Next, I added the Contents link at the top of the navigation page
... but it's not consistent with the other pages

<dom> "Great Relationships" maybe, then?

Yeliz: Coming back to the title, what about "Synergies" instead of "Relationship"?

DKA: Jo would kill me if we do that. Seriously, I think we should avoid it as it's a kind of a Buzz word
... I suggest we leave "Relationship" for the time being, and propose that you raise this again a bit later on.
... Back to the "Contents" link, I think I agree with Francois, and that we should remove the link to be consistent with the other pages.

Alan: OK.
... In each page, the links in the "Nothing" section, the links for the SC can't target anywhere in the doc because there's nowhere to point to.
... That's confusing. What could we do?

<jeffs> consistency in link targets will result in document that is easier to actually use

francois: [emphasizing the confusion]. Proposes to complete the list in the Something section to link down in the document

alan: They will be consistent because the Everything section will be deleted

-> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/Accessibility/drafts/ED-mwbp-wcag-20080624/mwbp-wcag20.html#summary_work Summary from MWBP to WCAG 2.0

francois: just so that we agree, because there's no "Everything" section in the page I just pasted in IRC

alan: OK. It's organized differently in this page.
... I agree, it's not consistent here.

DKA: We could add explicit text such as "WCAG, section 1.1.1" instead of "1.1.1"
... it's not that elegant but I don't see how we can do otherwise

francois: fine with this approach, just think we need to be consistent in all pages

alan: further down, there is both a "Refer to" link and a "Back to list of" link which point more or less to the same place
... I think the "Refer to" link should be taken out, useful to edit the document, but not for readers

DKA: And then Francois listed some typo fixes which I think you can just include without us having to review the document.
... My perspective is that I'm happy with the document as it is, modulo the discussion we just had, and I'm ready to delegate the doc to Alan
... so that he pushes forward to Public Working Draft

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We publish a public working draft of the current version of the MWBP-WCAG document (Alan's latest, with agreed changes from today's discussion implemented).

alan: Tomorrow we'll discuss this in the EOWG, but I don't expect any major changes.

<achuter> +1

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We publish a public working draft of the current version of the MWBP-WCAG document (Alan's latest, with agreed changes from today's discussion implemented).

DKA: yes, unless there's a huge problem, I think we should publish it! Francois, could you take an action to do that?

francois: sure!

<DKA> +1

<dom> +1

<jeffs> +1

<yeliz> +1

<hgerlach> +1

RESOLUTION: We publish a public working draft of the current version of the MWBP-WCAG document (Alan's latest, with agreed changes from today's discussion implemented).

alan: It would be good at some stage if Charles for instance would review the document completely.

DKA: Sure, but I think we need to plan an outreach on the doc. I plan to blog about it on Betavine for instance

alan: and I'll [scribe missed that]

<achuter> Alan will be presenting on it at ICCHP in Linz next month

DKA: Thanks a lot Alan!

<dom> [I didn't send any new comment this week :) ]

mobileOK Basic Tests

<dom> "send comments to public-bpwg-comments@w3.org (with public archive) through 30 June 2008"

DKA: When is the review period supposed to end?
... 30th. Right. We're quite close to the end of our comments period, and I don't think there were any new comment.
... I think we'll wait for the 30th in the hope that noone will step in with damaging comments...

Quick report on Device Description Working Group

DKA: DDWG had their last F2F last week, and approved publication of their documents.
... So basically, they are done with their charter
... I think it's important to know that, you know, working groups do end from time to time! :)
... Any thoughts on this?

dom: Happy this is completed. Big service for the community. And hopefully, it would serve us for the Mobile Web Application Best Practices.
... It still needs to go through the process though

mobileOK Checker

DKA: Any further update from the checker

miguel: We had a call yesterday. We reviewed of Bugzilla bugs, closed some of them, and saw how to address other. We plan to have another call next week. We've distributed the workload among participants.

DKA: Great. I added a group participant from Vodafone Spain. Did he make contact?

miguel: yes, we had some email exchanges from Oscar, but he couldn't make it for the call. He asked for the minutes of the call, so hopefully will be among us next week.
... Any question on the checker?
... Are we expecting a new release of the checker before mid-July so that we can make this part of the annoucement?

dom: we're targeting this, but the changes introduced by the last call of mobileOK Basic Tests is hard to address

DKA: OK, so this brings us to the mid-July press release. What's the status?

dom: Current plan is to focus on MWBP based on XHTML Basic 1.1 with an emphasis on the work on Mobile Web Application Best Practices.
... We clearly need an updated draft of MWABP by then to publish a FPWD of the doc at the same time.
... We need testimonials from you guys, feel free to follow up with Marie-Claire
... Process-wise, I can't tell you much, but we're in a good shape for MWBP. Unless there's a problem with XHTML Basic 1.1, we should be fine.

DKA: I assume Adam is working on an updated version of MWABP.
... I think we basically covered the agenda items I wanted to address today.
... Remaining stuff is issues and actions, and propose to postpone that to next week

<dom> [I just sent a list of actions that I think can be closed easily en masse next week ]

DKA: unless someone has actions that he wants to see closed?

dom: I sent this to the member list as it's administrative and boring
... I looked at the good candidates that could be closed easily. I suggest we close them "en masse" next week.

<dom> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: close all the action items identified in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-bpwg/2008Jun/0069.html without futher discussion

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close the actions enumerated by Dom in his email dated 26-June-2008 unless anyone objects by EOD 30-June-2008.


<DKA> +1

RESOLUTION: Close the actions enumerated by Dom in his email dated 26-June-2008 unless anyone objects by EOD 30-June-2008.

DKA: Thanks dom

dom: Just, as a reminder, when you take an action, please take 5mn before the call to review it, update the due date if necessary (it shouldn't!), update the status to "Pending review" when done.

DKA: absolutely right Dom!
... AOB?
... OK, session adjourned!

<miguel> bye

<manrique> bye

<hgerlach> bye

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/06/26 15:27:51 $