- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:42:53 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
>On 3/21/10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >> 2) The problem is Author Conformance Requirements. > > Great. Could you make sure there is a clear statement of a single > problem with the spec in the bug report? Ideally the bug title would > be updated to reflect that problem as well. In some cases it may be helpful to think beyond artificial constraints. Sometimes the real problem encompasses more than a single bug. It is important to solve a problem at the right level. If you ask questions that are too narrow, you may end up fixing symptoms of a problem, rather than the problem itself. To quickly solve a problem, we often artificially limit the information we use in defining the problem. Creative problem solving requires looking at the "big picture," considering all relevant information about the problem. But with that said, big problems are normally made up of many smaller ones. This is the stage at which a Drill-Down technique and tools like Bugzilla can be used to break the problem down to its component parts and establish dependencies [1]. For instance the alt Issue 31 is a big issue which WAI CG looked at last year holistically. It will encompass numerous bugs and change proposals. When Dan Connolly was chairing the HTML working group he made it a point to have HTML problems that encompassed the same design space in the same tracker issue and not scattered in numerous issues so we didn't lose track of the real problem. But anyway, looking ahead and focusing on the big picture as well as the small details may help. Best Regards, Laura [1] Example: Dependency tree for Bug 8716 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8716 On 3/21/10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On 03/20/2010 09:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> >>> Or to put it another way, I don't see a compelling case here for not >>> following the Decision Policy guidelines on what should go in a bug. >> >> To the contrary: >> >> 1) I believe that the data I have provided demonstrates that there >> is a clear and substantial problem with the Author Conformance >> Requirements. >> >> 2) The problem is Author Conformance Requirements. > > Great. Could you make sure there is a clear statement of a single > problem with the spec in the bug report? Ideally the bug title would > be updated to reflect that problem as well. > > (Note: I don't think the noun phrase "Author Conformance Requirements" > is in itself a problem statement, nor is linking to a bunch of data in > itself a problem statement. A statement like "Some popular sites are > not conforming HTML5" plus an enumeration of said sites would be an > example of a problem statement, but I'm honesty not sure at this point > if that's what you think the problem is.) > > Regards, > Maciej -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Sunday, 21 March 2010 09:43:26 UTC