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

chronology -- need feedback

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:24:54 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030731110941.02a91160@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG --

Your feedback and comments would be appreciated...

Here is the best I can do with a table for the chronological view of OpsGL 
guidelines.  This has not been easy.  Why?  Because the chronology 
correlation is only approximate, and is complicated by the when-applied vs. 
when-addressed issue.

Also it is not easy because we believe and have embedded in OpsGL, "earlier 
is better", but "later is better than nothing".  That is why we declined 
(in specific resolved QAWG issues) to bind a time-line to the 
guidelines.  E.g., GL1 & GL2 are "charter ideally", but "later" if your WG 
is already in progress.

Therefore, the only approach that I could think of that didn't make a total 
mess:  Portray an *ideal chronology*, for a new WG that is doing its own 
TM, addressing everything early enough, and having everything ready in good 
time.

Is this (table) really better than nothing?  Or does it obfuscate and confuse?

If the latter, can you suggest changes to make it simpler and more useful?

I sense that a Gantt-like graphic might be nicer, but I need to get on with 
Monday's deadlines and put this aside.  In the graphic, one could have pale 
colored bands representing the stages (CH,...,Rec, post-WG), and for each 
GL could work with one or two lines that run orthogonal to the bands.  One 
could work with solid and dashed sections of a line to indicate "now is 
best", and "not optimal, but better here than never".

Btw, I'm still having a little problem with the "Applies at" column in the 
last few rows.

-Lofton.

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 13:24:06 GMT

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