W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: QAH outline

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:05:19 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

Thanks for the reply Dom.  Comments on four of your replies are embedded...

At 11:37 AM 4/13/2004 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>Le ven 09/04/2004 ŗ 19:53, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> > The telecon minutes [1] left me a bit uncertain about what we
> > decided.  I'll consider transferring (from Intro+OpsGL) use cases
> > and/or usage scenarios in an intro section of QAH.  With it in front
> > of us, it will be easier to decide -- move, leave, delete, change,
> > etc.
>OK, sounds like a good approach.

As you see, in yesterday's draft [1] I didn't have time to do the 
cut-paste.  But in the "Scenarios" section, I put a bullet list with links 
to the 3 pieces of Intro & OpsGL that might potentially contribute.  We can 
visit that tomorrow.  (Email discussion welcome also!)

[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/04/QA-handbook

> > > Also, I think it would be more appropriate to speak of "Test
> > > Development
> > > process" rather than the generic "QA" process, which will be too
> > > fuzzy
> > > for most of our readers.
> >
> > I agree in principle.  But "Test Development process" is perhaps a
> > little more limited than what we mean by "QA process".  (Or ... maybe
> > not?) I have changed the generic "quality process" or "QA process" in
> > a few places, but mostly I am flagging it in the draft and inviting
> > specific suggestions.
>OK, this will allow to spot whether or not we're talking about a generic
>QA process or a more targeted one.

I forgot to flag the individual occurrences.  Be alert for them as you 
review (everyone).  If time today, I'll throw a pink highlight on the 
occurrences.  (But I gotta' put some attention into other stuff today, also.)

> > > I would simplify the section by putting up front the few options
> > > available to organize the test development effort, with links to
> > > templates ; plus adding the pro/cons for each options, and
> > > generalizing
> > > a bit in the end to list the points a WG would need to address if it
> > > were to build a new process from scratch.
> >
> > I'm still confused about this one.  Can you give specifics in terms of
> > what's in the outline [2] now?
>My point was that instead by starting upfront with all the possible
>items that needs to be addressed in QAPD, we should just say that for
>most groups, the QAPD template has all the relevant stuff, and then
>saying "if you need a customized QAPD for some reasons, here are the
>points it should address" ;
>by customized, I mean differing from the template one not in its details
>[e.g. email address], but in its intents ; from what I understand, most
>of the WGs QAPD are copy & paste from each other, which means that the
>need to know about the details is probably not high.
>But reading the way you've written the section, I'm not sure my comment
>still applies...

My intent was more or less along the lines of your above explanation.  I 
think it should be template driven (or cut-paste existing QAPD), with 
relatively few good-practice (GP) highlights, and relatively little prose.

If you think I have missed the mark, I'd welcome specific suggestions to 
adjust it.

> > This is mostly invisible to me.  Do you have some references
> > subsequent to the work we did with Joseph?  That ad hoc task group
> > arrived at some consensus with some major participants like IBM, Sun,
> > Microsoft.
>I don't have the right references yet ; it'll probably have to wait till
>a next version of the QAH, but that's definitely where it should be
>documented. I'll try to see what I can get...
> > I propose that we should point to the work we did with Joseph, as
> > OpsGL currently does.  "Chose Document or Software License, consider
> > applying it separately to different components of TM."
>Hmm... I'm unsure... It may better to leave it empty for now, waiting
>for the topic to be cleared out - there have subsequent discussions
>which make me wonder if the results of the meeting in June is still
>relevant. Sorry not to have better references yet...

Okay.  As you notice, the draft [1] does indeed point to JR's 
documents.  In my view, they are a good (member-only) resource to indicate 
to our audience of Chairs and Staff, just how dangerous the issue can be to 
their plans and schedules.

On the other hand, even though member-only, I was unsure whether the direct 
identification of the participants (IBM, Sun, Microsoft, etc) was okay.

Finally, has the thinking recorded there been superseded or discredited by 
the past year's activities (which seem to be mostly invisible even to members)?

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 11:07:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:32 UTC