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

pre-telcon comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:04:05 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020308092308.01dc2990@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG --

For today's special telcon -- a pass at all priorities in Process & 
Operations checklist [1] -- I have some comments for discussion.  (I also 
have a bunch of editorial comments, which I'll send later, probably after 
the telcon.)

1.) Criteria for priorities -- As I looked at the priorities, I was at a 
loss to decide between 1, 2, and 3 on some of them.  What are our 
criteria?  Is it just a popularity poll?  WAI has some criteria, see [2]. 
In addition to the correspondence to MUST, SHOULD, and MAY for the 
checkpoint, there is some qualitative statement about the effect on 
accessibility.  I.e., the additional 1-2 sentences explains in 
accessibility terms, what is a MUST, a SHOULD, and a MAY.  Does anyone want 
to propose something similar for our Process&Operational checkpoints?

2.) Commitment checkpoints -- that said, I have one impression coming out 
of TechPlenary week.  It is imperative that WGs address the QA staffing 
issue as early as possible.  Lots of problems are coming from the perceived 
lack of resources.  IMO, some of this is due to not having aggressively 
required QA workers at the very start.  Accordingly, I would give priority 
1 to any such checkpoints (e.g., ckpt 2.2 is P2 now, and I would give it P1).

3.) In the same vein, should we have a new checkpoint addressing the "Call 
for Participation"?  I.e., there should be aggressive recruiting of people 
with QA interest, not just technical ("invent the standard") interest?

4.) Normative language.  In the the first paragraph of Guideline 1, at [3], 
the word "must" is used.  Similarly "should" in last pgph of Checkpoint 
2.1, "must" in ckpt 5.3.  What is the normative intent of these?  None, 
because they are not in upper case?  Or, are they used in the RFC2119 sense.

5.) Normative language.  In ckpt 5.3, what about the use of 
"SHOULD"?  Should "SHOULD" be "should", or should "SHOULD" or "should" be 
replaced with other wording?

6.) Duplicate checkpoints?  I don't understand the difference between ckpt 
1.3 and ckpt 3.1.

See you soon,
-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/02/ProcOps-checklist-0225.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#priorities
[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2002/02/qaframe-ops-0225.html
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 12:02:29 GMT

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