W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Draft Minutes of W3C QAWG telecon Monday August 11, 2003

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:19:34 -0700
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <3F37DE36.8030206@sun.com>

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 11-August-2003
-------------------------------

Scribe: Patrick Curran

Attendees:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(SM) Sandra Martinez (NIST)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(VV) Vanitha Venkatraman (Sun Microsystems)

Observers:
(DM) Dave Marston (IBM)

Regrets:
Kirill Gavrylyuk (Microsoft)
Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)
Peter Fawcett (RealNetworks)
Mark Skall (NIST)
Andrew Thackrah (Open Group)

Absent:
Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)

Summary of New Action Items:

AI-20030811-1 LR will modify the scope section of SpecGL to indicate
what will be covered in future revisions. Due 20030825.

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0027.html
Previous Telcon Minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2003Aug/0007.html

Minutes:

1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) Any routine business
 
   - AI status for:  WCAG 2.0 reply [1]?

PC summarized his response to Wendy. In addition to conformance testing 
her message addressed testing their guidelines, the promotion of 
implementation testing, and the utilization of feedback from the 
implementation process to improve their guidelines.

LR agrees that we need to address the process of testing to refine the 
spec rather than to refine the implementation. XSL-FO developed test 
suite for this purpose.

PC: Jeremy Carroll's comments on TestGL re waterfall model raise similar 
questions - we will address these during next week's telecon. Is it 
appropriate for this group to address these broader testing issues or 
should we focus narrowly on conformance-testing?

LR: yes - in the early stages we need more than conformance testing - 
should provide feedback into refining spec.

PC: feedback loops are important.

We agreed to consider this topic, and discuss later, either in email or 
at next week's teleconference.

    - XHTML Print Last Call Review (7-sep) [0]

No volunteers.

    - Boulder hotels (1 or 2 blocks?) [2b]

LR: blocks of rooms will be reserved in both hotels.

    - Boulder attendee requirements [2a]

LR summarized the facilities that will be available. We'll have a group 
dinner one evening. She reminded us of the need to provide our personal 
info for security checking.

    [- overdue Action Items ]

Not addressed.

3.) WAI (JG) negative on DoC
    - discussion thread [3]

LR summarized discussions with Jon Gunderson about his concerns re 
accessibility being addressed in recs. We have responded saying that we 
don't think this is
our responsibility - should be addressed at a higher level. He doesn't 
agree.

KD: we made the right choice. If we try to cover everything (all 
requirements) we will fail.

LR agrees: this would water down the QA stuff. This is a slippery slope: 
we would have to add I18N, device-independence, etc.

PC agrees: it's not our job to tell people what to test, just how.

Daniel is discussing this with Judy Brewer. The WAI will discuss at a 
conf-call this week.

4.) Any SpecGL topics (contingency placeholder)

[At DM's request, this topic was discussed first (he had to leave early).]

LR summarized SpecGL LC issue 29.3 from Ian Jacobs: "It might be 
valuable for a specification to explain how to include its requirements 
in another specification add something to address how specs can 
reference other specs". Our response is that we would postpone this for 
a future revision of the doc. LH and LR are working on wording for this. 
Do we think it's OK to include in the status or scope section of SpecGL 
a statement that this version covers just the basics, and that a future 
version will contain more detail?

General agreement that this would be a good idea, and that this belongs 
in the scope section.

LR took an AI to make the necessary change within two weeks.

5.) Adjourn at 11:30.
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 14:20:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT