W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2002

general comments on Framework: Process & Operational

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:12:00 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020107113950.03b898d0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
There is alot of good information in the document.  The following are some 
general comments on the structure-format of the document. Comments on the 
content will be forthcoming

1.  Rather than say that this document is informative, Recommend that this 
document (and the other framework documents) be presented as a reference 
document for quality principles and practices (this is how WAI guidelines 
classify themselves).  And, similar to WAI, state that the document can be 
used as reference material or cited as normative reference from other 
documents. Again, stealing from WAI, in the beginning of this document have 
a Priorities section where the checkpoints are identified as MUST, SHOULD, 
MAY.

2.  The Terminology section (1.1) remove the first sentence.  All that 
needs to be said is that some (unusual) relevant terms are defined when 
first used. Other terminology is contained in the Glossary.

3. Terminology, paragraph on RFC 2119 -  is very confusing.  What does it 
mean to be nominally informative and then ...used as if the guidelines are 
normative?

4.  Recommend that all Guidelines be unequivocal statements:  For example 
Guideline 1:  Completion and publication of significant test materials are 
a criterion for CR-exit and PR-entrance.  Then the checkpoints deal with 
how the WG achieve this or not - that is, the "must" or "should"

5.  Consistency of sections.  Some sections have Explanation & Rationale 
others have Explanation.  And, then after some checkpoints there are 
Explanations.  Recommend that a template format be used for to provide 
consistency - for example: Checkpoint, followed by Explanation, followed by 
Checkpoint and if applicable a description goes along with the Checkpoint.

Since there is some much explanation and rationale information interwoven 
with the Guidelines/checkpoints, it would be easier (especially to 
implement) to have the Guidelines/checkpoints all together - perhaps at the 
end of the document or at the end of each section.  So each section of the 
document would contain the rationale (background), explanation etc., and 
then the guidelines/ckpoint (if they aren't all together at the end of the 
document).

Lynne
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 13:09:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:08 GMT