- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:01:44 +0200
- To: "HU, BIN" <bh526r@att.com>, "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
WFM. I'll use this criteria when generating the final result, unless I see a discussion on alternative approaches. /g On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 23:06:33 +0200, Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > Thanks! Works for me! > > mav > > On Jun 23, 2013, at 10:56 PM, "HU, BIN" <bh526r@att.com> > wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> Thank you for the great suggestion. So the mapping can be tweaked as: >> >> - Internal: >> >> OK: 4 >> (OK): 2 >> NO: 0 >> >> - External: >> >> P/M/Now: 4 >> F/M/*: 3 >> P/O/Now: 2 >> F/O/*: 1 >> P/N: 0 >> F/N: 0 >> N/*: 0 >> >> All, >> >> Feel free if you have other suggestions to the group. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vickers, Mark [mailto:Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com] >> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:32 AM >> To: HU, BIN >> Cc: Giuseppe Pascale; public-web-and-tv@w3.org >> Subject: Re: [testing] initial results from testing priorities survey >> >> Bin, >> >> This is a great start. I only have a couple of suggested tweaks: >> >> First, I think I'd prioritize Mandatory for Present or Future over any >> Optional. Based on one reply I was involved with, the timing of future >> specs was as little as a few months from now, which is less time than >> these tests will take to create. The current Testing schedule is a two >> year program with a July start date. Whereas, the need for tests for >> optional parts of specs is by definition, well, optional. This also >> would mean that a 3 on the Internal survey would correspond to Optional >> on the External survey, which is how I think of it (i.e. "Nice to have, >> but not required"). >> >> Second, it might be better to reverse the numbering and use a 4 to 0 >> rather than a 1 to 5 scale. That way, the lowest level rating of "No >> testing" is zero, which would be the same for any of the many specs >> that weren't included in the survey. No expressed need for testing is >> presented as 0. >> >> Thanks, >> mav >> >> >> >> On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:08 PM, "HU, BIN" <bh526r@att.com> wrote: >> >>> Giuseppe, Clarke, and all, >>> >>> Thanks for collecting and putting those information together. >>> >>> The internal survey and external survey use different metrics, i.e.: >>> - Internal: priorities >>> - External: reference status / mandatory v.s. optional / timing >>> >>> If we want to aggregate those results into a single column, e.g. >>> priority level (1-5), I propose the mapping as follows: >>> >>> - Internal: >>> >>> OK: 1 >>> (OK): 3 >>> NO: 5 >>> >>> - External: >>> >>> P/M/Now: 1 >>> P/O/Now: 2 >>> F/M/*: 3 >>> F/O/*: 4 >>> P/N: 5 >>> F/N: 5 >>> N/*: 5 >>> >>> We can first map the individual results to the scale 1-5, and then >>> calculate the scores for each spec (i.e. the highest votes) to >>> conclude its final priority level. >>> >>> Feel free to suggest other methods for mapping the result and >>> calculating the score. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Bin >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com] >>> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:15 AM >>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org >>> Subject: [testing] initial results from testing priorities survey >>> >>> Clarke, all >>> I've started to copy the results from the responses received on the >>> MEMBER >>> ONLY wiki >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/Webtv/testing >>> >>> FYI, I added the link above also to the testing section of the public >>> wiki >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing#External_Groups >>> >>> Also, I've closed the internal doodle poll, and the result are now >>> available on the MEMBER ONLY wiki >>> https://www.w3.org/Member/wiki/Webtv/testing#Internal_members_survey >>> >>> What remains to be done: >>> >>> 1. wait for a couple of groups that have promised a reply soon >>> 2. copy those result on the MEMBER wiki, once received >>> 3. aggregate the internal member results, add a column in the table for >>> Web&TV >>> 4. define how we want to aggregate all the result in order to provide a >>> single "TV" column for the W3C testing group to consider. In particular >>> decide which kind of metric to use, as we have, for each spec, a >>> variety >>> of values we can consider: >>> >>> - how many group already reference it >>> - how many group consider testing of it mandatory >>> - how many groups plan to reference it in future >>> - when testing would be needed >>> - how it scored in the member survey >>> >>> What we could do is to define a priority level (e.g. 1-5). If we do >>> that, >>> we need to define how we map the info above on a given priority level. >>> >>> >>> /g >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Giuseppe Pascale >>> Product Manager TV & Connected Devices >>> Opera Software >>> >> -- Giuseppe Pascale Product Manager TV & Connected Devices Opera Software
Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 10:02:24 UTC