W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Instructions and team assignments for getting to Last Call

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:15:13 -0500
Message-ID: <020801c6114a$0b2dc980$e29a968e@WILDDOG>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Tim Boland" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

I think that each test in the HTML test suite fulfills the QA goals for a good test. For example test #1:

Mappable - it lists the guideline and SC that it maps to.
Atomic - it tests only a single feature.
Self documenting - the title explains what it is testing and what it expects.
Focused on technology - it is HTML specific
Correct - it's been reviewed by the group and accepted in a straw poll.

If you feel that the tests could be improved and get closer to the QA goals please let me know how.

>...QA Note Test Metadata [2] mentions 14 test 
>metadata elements as follows...
There is an XML file that contains all the information contained in the tests:

The XML file contains several of the metadata elements from the QA note such as "title", "status" and "description". It contains other elements that function similar to the ones in the QA note. For example the XML file contains a "prerequisite" element that I think functions as the "preconditions" element in the QA note.

I'm open to the idea of modifying the XML file so it contains the metadata suggested by the QA note if you feel that is necessary.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tim Boland 
  To: Gregg Vanderheiden 
  Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:56 AM
  Subject: RE: Instructions and team assignments for getting to Last Call

  Thanks for the update for the TEST portion!

  From QA Test FAQ Question #7 ("What makes a good test?") [1], 

  "A good test is:
         Mappable to the specification (you must know what portion of the specification it tests) 
         Atomic (tests a single feature rather than multiple features) 
         Self-documenting (explains what it is testing and what output it expects) 
         Focused on the technology under test rather than on ancillary technologies 
         Correct "

  Would any of these points apply/be relevant to the TEST portion mentioned in the excerpted message following
  (as possible additional guidance for the TEST portion)?

  Also, the QA Note Test Metadata [2] mentions 14 test metadata elements as follows:
  identifier, title, purpose, description, status, specref, preconditions, inputs, expected results,
  version, contributor, rights, grouping, and seealso.

  Some of these are already included in the TEST portion, but would any of these additional terms be
   useful for the TEST portion mentioned in excerpted message following? 

  Thanks and best wishes
  Tim Boland NIST

  [1]: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/01/test-faq#good
  [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-test-metadata-20050914/

  At 04:41 PM 12/30/2005 -0600, you wrote:

    Hi Tim,

    I updated the wiki page for techniques to include the information for the
    TEST portion.



     -- ------------------------------ 
    Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
    Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
    Director - Trace R & D Center 
    University of Wisconsin-Madison 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
    Of Tim Boland
    Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:24 PM
    To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
    Subject: Re: Instructions and team assignments for getting to Last Call

    Will there be any consideration of a template for tests, in addition to the
    template mentioned in the excerpted message following?   Is a test template 
    appropriate or necessary?
    I think that possibly including such a test template, or at least some
    additional specific instructions for test creators, might serve to enhance
    the consistency of test format across the various SCs, as well as simply the
    process of test description and maintenance.  Since tests are to evaluate
    the implementation of related techniques (which have a template), perhaps
    tests should also have a template?

    Just a thought..

    Thanks and happy new year!
    Tim Boland NIST

         At 03:05 PM 12/21/2005 -0600, you wrote:

    >4.      Draft new techniques and edit existing ones as required, using
    >the Techniques template in the WIKI <http://tinyurl.com/dgcd7>. Refer 
    >to Tips for editing techniques <http://tinyurl.com/78v78> for detailed 
    >5.      Include both pass and fail tests in the tests section of each
    >technique. ("Pass" shows correct implementation of the technique; "Fail"
    >shows incorrect implementation.)
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 16:15:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:58 UTC