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

Re: AI-20030106-5 QA Kit Summary - done

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:38:42 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030202132743.0525ab10@rockynet.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Here are some comments for EO kit discussion at telecon.

At 05:05 PM 1/16/2003 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote:
>[...]
>Goal:
>We need a kit to invite people to input more QA in their work, documents, 
>easily and in a painless way. This is a list of ideas I have gathered and 
>that will be necessary to develop.

This is a fine start.

To facilitate discussion, I'll state some issues and proposals, then embed 
some comments in Karl's outline...

1.) Staff issue.  Should we designate a small EO task team (EOTT) to 
develop a set of prototype materials?  I'm thinking, after the 3-feb 
telecon, where do we go with this and how do we get the materials done?

2.) Priority.  We must make a subset of the whole kit that Karl outlines 
for Boston, 4 weeks from today (5 of us will be visiting a whole bunch of 
WGs).  Thoughts?  If we agree that is the priority (yes? no?), then I think 
it is well do-able, if we have a small EOTT working on it (for the whole 
QAWG to review.)

Most of remaining comments will be about Boston kit...

3a.) Boston audience.  As Karl mentions (below), our entire EO program has 
a diverse audience -- "..Chair, Staff Contact, WG as a whole, AC", to which 
I would add test/qa specialist, spec editors, etc;  plus (below again), 
they are at all stages:  new, experienced, etc.

For Boston, the target audience should be:  WG as a whole (understanding 
that Chair, Staff Contact, editors, and test gurus will also be 
present).  We are also dealing with diverse experience -- what we present 
to UAWG can be less basic that what we present to MMI (actually, don't know 
that MMI is less experienced in QA matters; but they are new).

3b) Boston kit proposal.  The kit (for Boston) should work for the least 
common denominator of the preceding variability, but have useful stuff for 
the more advanced people as well.  Our EO team that are visiting the WG can 
then tailor the presentation for WGs that are more experienced, by skipping 
over very basic stuff, and possibly improvising (e.g., with WCAG, I could 
perhaps do a brief pointer and summary to our resources, and jump to some 
technical issues like priority model for guidelines/checkpoints).

3c) Boston kit length proposal.  Any "canned" presentation ought to be no 
more that 15 minutes (not counting questions and discussion)

4.) Our Boston goals, why are we doing the EO visits?

g1.) Introduce ourselves (QA):  who are we, our goals, our program.
g2.) Learn what the WGs are doing.
g3.) Find out what assistance they need/want.
g4.) Make the case:  "It's quick and easy to start QA."

(Other things also?  E.g., quick business case, "g5.)...QA pays excellent 
return on effort invested"?  Or does everyone in the WGs agree that it is 
valuable and a MUST activity by now?)

The Boston kit should help the QAWG visitor to accomplish these things.

Thinking ahead a little, I think that Quick Tips for OpsGL and SpecGL would 
be great to have, but I'm not sure how they fit into the goals that I 
articulated.  Maybe there is another goal, like "g6.) high level technical 
overview", which would be useful for more advanced and familiar 
WGs.  (I.e., for some WGs, g1 is unnecessary, and more advanced stuff would 
be most useful.)

Some specific embedded comments on Karl's outline...

>***Quick Start on QA: Your Swiss Knife tool for QA at W3C***
>
>+ Simple things you can do to start QA.
>
>    - Designate a QA person in your WG
>    - Review your WG against the Checkpoints Priority 1
>         of Ops Guidelines
>    - Review your specification against the checkpoints Priority 1
>         of Spec Guidelines
>    - Define Editors manual and Editing policy of your document at
>         the begining. If necessary define the markup.
>         Do not wait. It will be a big burden to do it later.
>         http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
>         http://www.w3.org/2002/05/rec-tips
>         http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules
>         http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/REC-sample

Definitely for Boston.  This serves g4.  (And borders a little bit on Quick 
Tips.)  For Boston scope, the 4th "-" item probably needs to be brief.



>    - Kit to prepare Publication
>         (for example last Call)
>         http://www.w3.org/2003/01/planLastCall.html
>         (coordinate with Steve Bratt on that)

IMO, this would be beyond Boston scope.  (But valuable long term).

>    - How-To answers basic questions?
>         I need a TS?
>         Where do I put my copyright for test?
>         How I organize my Implementation reports?
>         (New questions will be added with time)
>         How to ask resources to my own AC Rep?
>     - Highlight the point which are authorized and not clear in the 
> process documents like
>         Have more than one person of the same company in a WG?
>         How to write the charter for that?

Some of this would be in-scope for Boston (g4, g5, ..), some is probably 
too specialized for Boston (but in-scope for long-term kit.)


>Target (people? at which stage? experienced? new? start of WG?)
>         When writing the kit we have to explicitely says who will be the 
> most interested by the point: Chair, Staff Contact, WG as a whole, AC

See comments above.

>Rep, etc. with a specific markup in the Kit so we could extract list of 
>things which are for one specific person.

Good idea, but probably too much work pre-Boston.  As I proposed, the 
Boston kit would aim at a "WG as a whole" target, and be usable for both 
less experienced and more experienced audience.  But that configuration 
would be handled in real-time by the QAWG presenter.


>         Create Quicktips for QA

YES!

All for now,
-Lofton.


>         Tools which are needed for QA or closely related to QA.
>         - Issues trackers?
>         - Methods?
>         - etc.
>
>
>Your ideas are more than welcome.
>
>--
>Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
>           http://www.w3.org/QA/
>
>      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
>
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 21:43:46 GMT

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