See also: IRC log
natasha: welcomes all to call and introduces herself
… agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-mobile/2013Sep/0133.html
… all newcomers please look at group home page
<dom> WebMob home page
… also please look at wiki, which is linked from home page
… lots of good stuff, which we have been working on
<schuki> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Mobile/Methods_of_Work#IRC
natasha: stole some of the content from WebApps and Gov Linked Data
… al the details we were talking about last calll
… gitHub, Tracker and more
scribe: e.g. irc and so on
… and finally, chairs have been scribing so far, please make sure you volunteer!
<dom> Closing the gap report
dom: sent a mail to list with pointers to my work so far
… wanted to talk about tit and get feedback or commitment to feedback
… last spring there was the headlight task force. Intended to analyse the situation wrt WebApps vs Native Apps
… have tried to formalise some of the discussion into a framework so we can further the discussion
… I'd like the IG to be the host for this discussion
… and that the analysis feeds our agenda ongoing
… as an end user how do you perceive a Web app as opposed to a native app, what are the SWOT, 3 docs discuss
<dom> UX comparison framework
… first doc looks at just the user experience of mobile apps
<dom> WebApps UX
… second doc carries out an analysis of WebApps against this framework
… analysis is less consensual / more subjective at the moment
… think it needs attention
… third doc is a sketch of a set of actions to either reduce weaknesses or reinfoce the strengths
<dom> UX Action plans
… this set of three docs takes end-user perspective and helps to set the scene for evolution in a positive direction
<dom> Comparison framework for providers
… the second set of three docs does the same thing, but from a service provider perspective
… a) comparison framework, b) strengths and weaknesses against this framework
<dom> Gap analysis from provider perspective
… people who are service or content providers can particularly look at this
<dom> Action plan for improving provider perspective
… c) the third doc is similarly to the first set some suggested actions in respect of service providers
… quite lengthy hope it is useful
… in a new repo on our Github account:
<dom> Github repo
… would be good to publicise to get further input e.g. from the browser community
… next steps, would like to hear feedback from people who have read it, or just a commitment to read it
… thanks Jo for reading and feeding back, (I haven't read what you wrote)
jo: :-)
dom: feedback from the group would be useful
natasha: any questions, or feedback
<KayFritz> At least I can commit to reading it in the next weeks and give feedback
jo: thinks it is really useful, and think it would be a good idea to set some deadlines on getting feedback
natasha: agree, volunteers please?
… everyone should read and feedback through mailing list and volunteer
dom: volunteers … most welcome, and with a well-defined deadline
<KayFritz> I commit to feedback until 24.October
… getting input would be a good way to get more input so ...
… let's dish out some action items
<dom> ACTION: Kay to review closing the gap report - due October 24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/10-webmob-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Review closing the gap report [on Kay Fritz - due 2013-10-24].
<schuki> dom: sign me up for 24th oct too!
<dka> I will get some feedback to you - please assign me an action.
<dom> ACTION: Natasha to review closing the gap report - due October 24 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/10-webmob-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Review closing the gap report [on Natasha Rooney - due 2013-10-24].
jo: noting that manrique volunteers also
natasha: how do you want feedback?
dom: a) do a pull request for
edits that you think would be usefu
... especially for editorial changes
… b) feedback by email also work
dom: limited feedback from Natasha and Jo that this makes sense, no sense that anyone else either supports the approach or doesn't
dom: have not got much feedback on this
… this one is quite short, maybe too short to be useful, but need feedback that it is not useful if people think that
… try to make sure we're talking about the same thing when we do talk in detail. Any comments? Anyone read it?
jo: (speaks at length) but says that the discussion could be usefully deferred till we have discussed the documents above, since it needs to be framed in the light of what comes out of that discussion
<dom> Paper on Charter Scope Clarification and Context Relevant/Multi Device
<dom> http://w3c-webmob.github.io/w3c-webmob-what-is-mobile/note.html
<dom> A note on the meaning of "mobile" and relationship to the Webmob Charter
<dom> A note on the meaning of "mobile" and relationship to the Webmob Charter
jo: discussion is mainly about the contextual factors that vary between any delivery context
… provides a framework for looking at the differences between delivery contexts
natasha: please provide any comments
dka: to reiterate … we should be getting on in attacking the iussue
… how to make the Web the platform of choice
…understanding that when we talk mobile
… expectation that people have that using internet services on the phone is about using apps
dom: I could use clarification
… do you see the earlier documents under discussion as meaning addressing head on
dka: how we are talking about mobile is divorced from the reality
… would like to see us more forthright
… want to see us being more forthright in making the Web the platform of choice
jo: agree with the idea of "platform of choice" but for what? in what circumstances?
<stakagi> I also think that it is also mobile web to enable it to apply common contents and application, Regardless of a context[.
… think would be a good idea for people to read the doc and then disagree with it rather than the other way round
<schuki> http://www.w3.org/Mobile/mobile-web-app-state/
natasha: my favourite page on the Internet, don't like anything more than this
… very useful and allows us to monitor many things … and I am volunteering to help Dom keep document updated
… if you'd like to volunteer ...
… for many of the various topic ...
… (Natasha lists the kitchen sink) …
… recent one has been released recently
<schuki> schuki: lol jo
dom: latest is Oct 1 - has a couple new features
<schuki> schuki: i really do love this doc
… some indication of the level of editorial activity, lets readers get some kind of idea if anything is happen
<dom> ACTION: Dom to document how to contribute to Mobile Web App State doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/10-webmob-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Document how to contribute to mobile web app state doc [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2013-10-17].
… thanks Natasha for offering to help
… I'll provide more details as to how to do help
… help could be to point out out missing/wrong etc.
… but I'll set up a process for contributing
… meanwhile, just contribute away
nastasha: if you work in a specific area then that's where you can offer most help
… very useful document
<schuki> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Mobile/TPAC_Face-to-Face#Agenda
natasha: updates to the agenda at wiki
… need to make some changes in response to feedback from chairs
… hoping that people are able to attend
… pls let me know if you plan to be there but not on a day that a topic of particular relevance to you will be discussed
… Context Relevant Use Cases, needs some words, and on Testing Tobie has detailed what he'll be talking about
<Zakim> dom, you wanted to ask for input/feedback on draft agenda
dom: just want to be clear that this is a proposed agenda that we are looking for feedback
<dka> I will join the f2f.
… need clear documentation as to desired outcome of the session, need people to be prepared and to have read relevant docs
natasha: want comments - offering Cadbury's Dairy Milk etc for first up with comments
jo: one web.
<dom> jo: this document represents our analysis of use cases that have been hard to put in place at a point in time
<dom> ... the difficulty might be linked to standardization status, or implementation status, or testing
<dom> ... I'm not sure how to best proceed with this document, esp. in light of dom's standards state document
<dom> ... It would probably be worthwhile to document evolution since 8 months ago
dom: I think it would be useful to look back and identify what has changed
… some of the requirements that were not addressed though specification availability has moved on
… think it would be useful to look at features, why they are not getting traction, why they don't meet the needs etc.
… might be idealistic, but would be good to look at whether / why the technology meets the needs
… work won't get done if none does it, so who feels motivated to work on it?
… propose a more detailed plan to take the agenda forwards
Natasha: last time I looked at the document
… cross over with docs we are working on
… is there a one line distinction as to why we should be doing this alongside other things
… what is the aim of the document?
dom: it's a look at a set of use cases are important to mobile use cases and what specifications provide features to address the use cases
… looks at only a subset of possible use cases
… doc provides prioritisation, over and above what the other doc does
…. hence a useful driver
… for features critical we need a more detailed analysis
natasha: need focus on this and need use case first
… have dedicated a large chunk of time to this report at TPAC
… hoping we can attach actions to that
natasha: hearing none, time to close, thanks to all
… also to Dom for talking so much
meeting closed