Re: Revised outreach presentation outline

My responses to your comments are embedded.

Lofton Henderson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks Patrick -- it's shaping up well!
>
> I have one overall question:  do you anticipate to apply the W3C slide 
> maker once the content is all settled?  (Or is this to be left to The 
> Outreach Five?).


Yes - I certainly hope to use the slide-maker (or at least, to try it 
sufficiently far in advance to let you know that if I have trouble with it)

>
> I have some comments in-line.  Most of them are about polish, like 
> more links, which you were probably planning anyway...
>
> At 11:32 PM 2/25/03 -0800, Patrick Curran wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Stylistic notations:
>>
>> *bold*
>> @@link@@ (URL)
>>
>> ====================
>>
>>
>> * Why QA?
>>
>>   Investment in QA activies will:
>>     Promote better, more testable, more implementable specifications    
>>     Reduce the cost of developing specifications
>>     Increase the quality and interoperability of implementations
>>     Reduce duplication of test-development effort
>>   Even a small investment pays big dividends
>>   Ask us about DOM, SOAP, SVG...
>
> Possible alternative.  "Ask DOM, SOAP, SVG about their experience"

Different meaning. "Ask us" is more direct (you can get the data 
immediately after the presentation). "Ask them" is likely to take 
longer, but (hopefully) the endorsement would carry more weight. I can 
go either way. Does anyone else have an opinion?

>
> [Note.  Each WG name could be a hyperlink to the WG or their "test" 
> page.  Doesn't necessarily have to be activated by the speaker, but 
> these slides will be available somewhere in public space, for later 
> browsing by audience and others.]

Good idea - I'll try to do this

>
>> NOTES
>>
>> Originally we had two slides: why QA?, and business justification. I've
>> combined them, since the answer to "why?" should provide the business
>> justification.
>>
>> "Ask us about..." is the best we can do for now with test-cases, and
>> probably sufficient.
>>
>> TALKING POINTS
>>
>> The ops/spec guidelines will enable you to get the bugs out of your spec
>> early in the cycle. This will actually save you money due to fewer 
>> revision
>> cycles. Plus, the spec will be of higher quality.
>>
>> If you build a test suite, this will be expensive, but:
>>   participating companies will find bugs in their implementations,
>>      which will save them money
>>   it's cheaper to contribute to a 'shared' test suite than for all
>>      implementors to build their own test suites
>>
>>
>> * How the QA-WG can help you
>>
>>   We can't do your QA work for you
>>     We don't have the resources nor the domain-specific expertise
>>   We do provide guidance, tools, and processes
>>   We can help avoid duplication of effort
>>   Follow our guidelines, use our templates, measure against our and 
>> checkpoints
>>   Tell us what else you need 
>
>
> I think a link or two would be nice on this slide.  E.g., "tools" 
> could link to
>
> _http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/
>
> _Admittedly, not many of these are direct products/deliverables of 
> QAWG.  But we can talk around that.
>
> In 2nd-to-last line, "guidelines" could link to:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#docs ,
>
> and "templates" could link to:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-charter , or
> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-qapd ,
>
> and "checkpoints" could link to:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/qaframe-spec-ics#checklist-table 
> , or
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-ops-20030210/qaframe-ops-ics#checklist-table
>
> [I'm a fan of links that give a quickly grasped snap view of what we 
> mean.  Once again, the speaker doesn't have to activate them and talk 
> -- but they're there for that option.  I do see that you have provided 
> links later on in the more detailed sections.]

OK...

>
> TALKING POINTS
>
>>
>> Our framework docs are nearing completion, and we're getting ready to
>> re-charter - tell us what you want from us.
>>
>>
>> * It's easy to get started/How to work with us
>>
>>
>> NOTES
>>
>> During last week's teleconference we talked about a "how to get started"
>> slide, and how this should provide some very practical examples. I
>> haven't received any suggestions for this content, and I'm having
>> trouble distinguishing this slide from the OpsGL slide that we propose
>> to move to the end of the presentation.
>
>
> Maybe the OpsGL slide, done near the end of the talk, is approximately 
> the right stuff.  So we would save the "it's easy to get started" for 
> closing, for "punch", and deliver it with the OpsGL slide.  [TALKING 
> POINT.  "Getting started is easy, and OpsGL gives a roadmap for how to 
> do it.  Blah..blah...blah.."]
>
OK...

>
>> * Results
>>
>>   @@SOAP assertion list@@
>>     (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-testcollection-20020626)
>>
>>
>> NOTES
>>
>> We talked about the value of providing some real-world examples of 
>> the successful
>> application of our guidelines. I haven't received any suggestions for 
>> content.
>> Does this belong on a separate slide?
>
>
> I like the idea of a separate slide.  I, as a presenter, would view it 
> as optional.  Depending on the audience, I might just say "We have 
> some interesting early results, ..." and skip to the next slide.
>
> Lynne's example of UAWG SpecGL "AA" conformance (almost "AAA") would 
> be excellent here.
>
> But that still leaves us a little "thin".
>
"Results" doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of "this group 
reached AA conformance". In fact, I was thinking more of actual examples 
of the application of good practice, such as the SOAP assertion list. 
Maybe "Examples" would be a better title? It would also be good to point 
to a test suite with a harness (SVG?), to a group that is doing a 
particularly good job of soliciting and managing contributed tests, etc..

>
>> * Our Guidelines (the Seven Documents)
>>
>>   Introduction
>>     Roadmap, primer, guide to the other documents
>>   Operational Guidelines
>>     Planning, logistics, operation, and maintenance of WG quality 
>> processes
>>   Specification Guidelines
>>     How to write clearer, more implementable, more testable 
>> specifications
>>   Test Guidelines
>>     Technologies, tools, methods for writing test materials
>
>
> I'd suggest inks, probably to the current /TR/ versions (as opposed to 
> dated versions).
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-intro/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-ops/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-test/
>
> [Or else -- since the expansion of each one immediately follows, just 
> link "Seven Documents" to
> http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#docs ]
>
This is simpler, I think...

>
>> * Operations Guidelines (think QA)
>>
>>   Appoint a QA lead
>>   *Integrate* -- commit to QA goals and scenario
>>   *Staff* -- assess and assign appropriate staffing
>>   *Coordinate* -- synchronize QA and specification deliverables
>>   *Plan* -- for for development, publication, maintenance
>>   *How?* -- use OpsGL's @@charter template@@ and @@process template@@
>>     (http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-charter-20030217.html)
>>     (http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-qapd-20030217.html)
>
>
> Suggestion:  change first line to "*Get started* -- Appoint a QA 
> lead"  (or else just "*Start* -- Appoint...")
>
>
>> NOTES
>>
>> Although I like the idea of having a positive, "here's what you can do"
>> slide towards the end, I'm concerned about what it would do to the 
>> structure
>> if we move this slide to the end. Specifically:
>>
>> How is this slide different from the "how do I get started/see how easy
>> this is" slide that we might want to put up front?
>>
>> If we move this to the end, wouldn't it be weird to present SpecGL
>> before OpsGL?
>
>
> It wouldn't bother me necessarily.  I think most of the focus and 
> interest is about SpecGL.  It's where we spend most of our WG issues 
> time, and where we get most outside comment.  It will just take a 
> little "smooth talking" to make it seem right.  Maybe if we just swap 
> OpsGL and SpecGL then the final three become:
>
> SpecGL ("...blah...")
> OpsGL (aka, "Getting started is easy, here's how...")
> Feedback ("...finally, tell us what you think and what you want...")
>
> What do you think of that ordering?


I'll try this in the next rev (hopefully later tonight), and we can take 
a look.

>
> Notice also that we omit TestGL altogether as a detailed slide.  I'm 
> okay with that for now, and it is still a bit young and unstable.
>
It's easy enough to add one, and the speaker could always point out that 
this is less developed.  How about:

*Analyze* the specification(s).
*Declare* the structure of the test suite
*Document* the testing methodology.
*Provide* test automation and results-reporting framework
*Plan* for test development & conformance testing

>
>> * Spec Guidelines (think Testability)
>>
>>   *Define* scope; identify what needs to conform, and how
>>   *Specify* conformance policy & requirements; provide conformance clause
>>   *Use* profiles, modules, functional levels to subset the technology
>>   *Define* extension policy 
>>   *Identify* testable assertions, discretionary items
>>   *Specify* how conformance claims & statements are made
>>
>>
>> NOTES
>>
>> This slide's "chatty style" doesn't quite match OpsGL's. Can anybody
>> suggest an alternative?
>>
>>
>> * Feedback & Next Steps
>>
>>   What do you think of:
>>     Our last-call documents?
>>     Our tools and resources (Library, Matrix, Tools, ...)?
>>   Other feedback?
>>   What would you like us to do next?
>>     Review your processes and specs?
>>     Provide consulting services?
>>     Document existing best practices?
>>     Provide templates, tools, and test harnesses?
>>   Other suggestions?
>>
>>  
>> * References
>>
>>   Our home page (and the seven docs) (http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/)
>
>
> Instead of pointing to /QA/WG/, should we point to /QA/?  (I don't 
> know, I'm just asking).  And as a separate bullet, "The Framework 
> Seven" (pointing to .../QA/WG/#docs)
>
> Or to /QA/, /QA/WG/, /QA/IG/ (all three), e.g., "Our home pages for 
> @@QA@@, the @@QA WG@@, and the @@QA IG@@"


I'll try that...

>
>>   The Matrix (http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix)
>>   QA library (http://www.w3.org/QA/Library/)
>>   What else?
>
>
> How about:  _http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/
> _

Oops - forgot that.

Thanks for the detailed feedback...

> _
> _ <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/>

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 21:08:45 UTC