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

Re: One more time: the presentation

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:29:54 -0800
Message-ID: <3E5EF3D2.7040706@sun.com>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Lofton Henderson wrote:

> At 05:49 PM 2/27/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>> [...]
>> We're running out of time here, and I'd like to wrap this up by the 
>> end of day tomorrow (Friday).While there's always room for 
>> improvement, I think that this is getting close to "good enough".
> It's great!  We could go with it as is, or do one more iteration if 
> you want to make more changes.  One aspect that I like is that it's 
> pretty complete, but I could imagine delivering it in half-time by 
> skipping over a lot of the detail.  Also, I can imagine skipping stuff 
> and dwelling on other stuff, depending on the group -- it looks flexible.

Good. I'll keep tweaking as long as I receive feedback, and will send a 
"final" version at the end of the day tomorrow. In the meantime, just so 
we're all looking at the same version, I've attached the very latest 
(incorporating your feedback from this message).

Others: please review this rather than the last version.

> (Question.  10 slides, what would you guess is the presentation 
> length, unabridged?).

Good question. If you "read" the slides word for word, this is probably 
too long (20-30 minutes?). On the other hand, I hate it when people do 
that. The audience can read. If you're crisp, I think you could get 
through it in 10-15 minutes.

> My only pro-active comment:  fix the "for for development".


> My opinions on your questions...
>> Some specific questions:
>> * Are we happy with the last two bullets on slide 1 ("Even a small 
>> investment pays big dividends" ... "DOM, SOAP, SVG Working Groups 
>> have demonstrated this")? Should we add UAAG to this list, since 
>> they're on our Success Stories slide?
> It doesn't bother me that they are disjoint sets on the two slides, 
> but I can go either way.  Suggestion:  change "AA Conformance" to "AA 
> SpecGL conformance". (Or spell out "Spec Guidelines").
Done (actually, I switched the wording around, so it now reads "AA 
conformance to Spec Guidelines")

>> * How about the Success Stories slide? I provided a single link to 
>> each of three WGs' activities. Does this slide make sense? Could we 
>> add more links (eg DOM?) If so, please send suggestions. Is this 
>> slide redundant with the last bullet of the previous slide? (It does 
>> add more data - specifically, indicating the area where we think 
>> there's something worth looking at.)
> I don't think it's redundant -- okay as is -- the context is slightly 
> different and (as you say) the detail increases.
> As I imagine presenting it, I'm have a bit of trouble with the 
> transition to "Success Stories".  If someone has a good talking points 
> to help, that would be useful.  Or ... would it flow better if this 
> "Success Stories" was 2nd slide?  What do you think?

Agreed. It follows naturally and directly from the last bullet on slide 
1. I also added a DOM example to Success Stories and added UAAG to slide 
1, so there's a direct mapping between the two slides.

>> * I added a "Test Guidelines" slide. Do we want to keep it? Reword it?
> I can go either way.  It is easy enough to move over it quickly, if 
> there is not time or it's not appropriate for the audience.
OK - let's leave it in.

>> * Can anybody suggest addional links for the References slide? I will 
>> remove the "What else" when we agree that this is complete.
>> Of course, you should all feel free to make additional suggestions 
>> for improvement.
>> Thanks...
>> PS: a procedural issue. We talked about producing "Quick Tips" in 
>> addition to this presentation. Did we decide on how to publish them? 
>> (If so, we should probably reference them, and link to them, from 
>> this presentation.) If we are going to publish them, we might want to 
>> review them to make sure the message they send is consistent with the 
>> message this presentation sends, and modify them or this, or both if 
>> they aren't consistent.
> IMO, we won't be able to finish and agree to the Quick Tips in 
> short-term (Boston).  At most, I would say, "we're working on Quick 
> Tips."  An alternative view is:  the SpecGL, TestGL, and OpsGL slides 
> *are* Quick Tips.  Or maybe "Really Quick Tips" -- I think Karl's 
> draft SpecGL Quick Tips is about twice the number of points as the 
> SpecGL slide.

I agree. We have "quick quick tips" in the presentation, and I don't 
think we absolutely need anything else.

Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 00:31:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:30 UTC