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

RE: Draft Conformance Clause

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:52:07 -0800
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F602B7FC4A@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Thank you, Ian,

>I would recommend sticking with A/AA/AAA just because that system is
already familiar to people within W3C. 
>Is there an important reason for changing nomenclature?

I originated this because "Level-AAA" seemed to be confusing to me, but
if "AAA" is the established preferred way in W3C , let's definitely
change back to "AAA".

> A Working Group conforms to the "QA Framework: Process & Operational 
> Guidelines" if the Working Group meets at least all Conformance Level 
> 1 requirements.

We could change it introducing Level X... The phrase itself would be
useful to enable convenient conformance assertions for WG as a whole.
 
...A Working Group conforms to the "QA Framework: Process & Operational 
Guidelines" Level X if the Working Group meets all Conformance Level 
X requirements.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 5:05 PM
To: Lofton Henderson
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Draft Conformance Clause


Lofton Henderson wrote:
> 
[snip]
--------------------
> 4. Conformance
> 
> This section defines conformance of Working Group processes and 
> operations to the requirements of this specification.  The 
> requirements of this specification are detailed in the checkpoints of 
> the preceding "Guidelines" chapter of this specification, and apply to

> the Working Group QA-related documents and deliverables required by 
> this specification.
> 
> This section defines three levels of conformance to this
> specification:
> *       Conformance Level 1: all Priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied;
> 
> *       Conformance Level 2: all Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are
> satisfied;
> *       Conformance Level 3: all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are
> satisfied;

Here's why we chose "Level Double-A" instead of "Level 2": It wasn't
clear to people that "2" meant "Priority 1 AND 2 requirements are met."
It could be interpreted as "no priority 1 requirements are met, only
those P2 and below (P3).". 

I would recommend sticking with A/AA/AAA just because that system is
already familiar to people within W3C. 

Is there an important reason for changing nomenclature?

> A Working Group conforms to the "QA Framework: Process & Operational 
> Guidelines" if the Working Group meets at least all Conformance Level 
> 1 requirements.

I don't recommend that, because it means that you can say 
"I conform to the document" without saying how much. For 
WCAG 1.0, you have to be explicit: "This page conforms level A." 

I don't think people should go around saying "I conform to the QA
Guidelines" when the conformance granularity is not binary
(conforms/doesn't conform). Since there are at least three levels (1,2,3
or A,AA,AAA) I think you need to require people to be explicit for *all*
conformance claims.

So, I think the above sentence sets the wrong expectations that one
might be able to talk about conformance in a generic sense.

 - Ian

> To make an assertion about conformance to this document, specify:
> *       The guidelines title: "QA Framework: Process & Operational
> Guidelines"
> *       The guidelines URI: [...tbd...]
> *       The conformance level satisfied: "Level 1", "Level 2", or
> "Level 3".
> 
> Example:
> This QA processes and operations of this Working Group [???] conform 
> to W3C's "QA Framework: Process & Operational Guidelines", available 
> at [...tbd...], Level 2.
> ----- end -----

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 20:52:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT