AUWG QA Process Update (dated July 25 2004)-Action Item from Jul 04 AUWG f2f Meeting

W3C QA Handbook May 10 2004 Good Practices as applied to the ATAG deliverables:

• Decide ASAP - Will the Working Group build test materials or acquire them?: Initially the AUWG would probably build test materials, but in the future the AUWG may be able to "acquire" certain test materials, given the right conditions? For example, it may be possible for an authoring tool developer to "release" their tests for their product into the public domain (since presumably tool developers may test their offerings before announcing them), again given the right conditions? (This may save time in developing an effective test suite?). The ATAG2.0 Techniques might suggest material to be ultimately placed into a test suite?
• Think about and enumerate the QA activities and deliverables that might help the Working Group through the Recommendation track. Minimally, commit to assuring the timely existence of test materials: It has been decided informally by the AUWG that a test suite for ATAG2.0 needs to be available as a condition for the exit of ATAG2.0 from CR status in the W3C process? These tests in such a test suite should cover every "feature" in the ATAG2.0 specification, and be passable by multiple authoring tool developers? Work has started on such a test suite, with a Last Call ATAG2.0 WD expected in Fall 2004, followed by stability of the ATAG2.0 Techniques, followed by stability of a test suite?
• Synchronize QA deliverables with specification milestones, and for the bigger QA deliverables, define and schedule intermediate milestones if possible: See answer to previous question. There has been some preliminary discussion in the AUWG on this subject.
• Consider whether the Working Group should tie any quality criteria to Rec-track advancement: See answer to previous question(s). In addition, the AUWG is concerned both with WCAG quality criteria, since the ATAG specification references the WCAG specification, and with standards set forth in ISO16071. since the ATAG specification references ISO16071.
• Put some thought into how to staff the WG's QA plans: Tim Boland (among others?) of the AUWG will keep the AUWG aware of W3C QA issues, and coordinate ATAG2.0 test suite development? Tim will also participate in the a WAI test suite coordination task force, and participates in the WCAG Techniques Task Force.
• Put all of the Working Group's important test and QA-related information in one place in a QA Process Document: There was a draft ATAG QA process document created for the AUWG. In addition, there is a section on the WAI AUWG site devoted to test suite issues?
• Identify a Working Group point-of-contact about test materials or other QA-related business: Tim Boland - NIST (see answers to previous questions)
• Specify an archived email list to use for QA-related communications (test suite questions, bug reports, contributions, etc.): Needs to be created for the AUWG?
• Identify web page(s) for test suites, announcements, and any other QA-related deliverables: There is a section on the WAI AUWG site devoted to test suite issues?
• As early as possible, get WG consensus and define acceptable license terms for submission of test materials: Would need to be discussed by the AUWG if such a contingency should arise
• As soon as the nature of the Working Group's test materials becomes clear, get consensus and define license terms for publication of the test materials: Would need to be discussed by the AUWG if such a contingency should arise
• Consider whether to have brands, logos, or conformance icons associated with the Working Group's test materials. Define associated policies.: ATAG1.0 had a logo; the AUWG feels that ATAG2.0 will have a logo also? Any conditions for representation of the logo are displayed in Section 2 of the 06-25-04 ATAG2.0 WD and in test suite materials.
• Do a quality assessment of candidate test materials before going any further: When the ATAG2.0 test suite is created, it is anticipated that each test as well as the test suite as a whole will undergo a thorough review by the AUWG as well as by other interested parties?
• Ensure that there are adequate staff to support the transferred test materials: Would need to be discussed by the AUWG if such a contingency should arise
• Sort out IPR issues with the external party that produced the test materials: Would need to be discussed by the AUWG if such a contingency should arise