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

QAH comments

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:06:14 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040928110138.00aa0008@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Following are comments I have, now that I have read through the document.

General
1. What is the difference between Principle and Good Practice.
Since there is no normative content, does it make a distinction between 
these? It may be confusing to have non-normative Principles in QAH, when 
SpecGL makes Principles normative.  If we keep these 2, there needs to be 
an explanation.  Additionally, Section 1.4 says that the QAH ‘integrates 
quality assurance techniques and good practices’  what is the relationship 
to principles.  My recommendation is to make everything a good practice.

2. Principle and GP statements are long and very descriptive.  Should we 
make these short, declarative phrases?

3.  Inconsistencies with topics under Principles and GPs as well as 
variation of topic names.  For example, some P and GPs only have 
descriptive text, others have Why care and What does this mean.  Others 
have Example, How can I do it, Related.  Others have How, What does this 
mean and examples, and yet another has Success criteria.

4. Confusion between terms and their relationships.
Will readers be confused by our use of ‘test materials’ ‘quality-related 
deliverables’ (I think test materials is a subset of this), ‘quality criteria’

5. Spell out ‘spec’

6.  With the current structure/format, it is very difficult to identify and 
call-out specific GPs.

More specific comments (most are typo, grammar, minor changes)

1.2 Why QAH
/see 2.1 Specification editors/ - what is this referencing?  Remove.

1.4 last sentence
‘to completion and maintenance’ - what does this refer to?

1.5 Other QAF resources
add (planned) after [QAF-TEST]

Section 2:
GP: decide as soon as possible….
/programme/ program/

GP: Think about…
Move this list of quality-related deliverables to earlier in this 
section?  The first Principle, talks about quality-related deliverables.

‘Test Materials are the most common quality-related deliverables’.  From 
the list, what is not considered test materials? I can only find 1 
item.  Should we label items in the list or mention this fact?
GP: Put some thought into how…
How can I do it?
/to write it into the charter/to write into the charter/
/for each and every of the above/for each and every one of the above/
/groups life/group’s life/
/TA/test assertion/

Section 3
GP: Put all of the Working Group’s important test…
How can I do it?
/There is not really/There really is not/
Reorder these paragraphs.  Move What does it mean ahead of How can I do 
it.  This way, Examples directly follow the last para of How can I do it, 
which mentions examples.

GP Identify a Working Group point-of-contact …
/about/for/
Example  this is identical to what is in the previous GP.  Either delete or 
put in an applicable example

GP: Specify an archived email list…
1st para specifies a ‘.. separate from the Working…’  Why must it be a 
separate list?  A WG may want to use their general WG mail list.

GP Identify Web page(s) ...
/actually// (remove)

Paragraph: The Working Group’s QA Process Document is also…
This is out of place here.  Needs to move somewhere else  perhaps Section 4?

Section 3.2
/development process are going/development process that are going/

Section 5
The term ‘test suite manager’ is introduced.  Is this the same as the QA 
point of contact?    Do we need to explain what we mean by test suite 
manager or is this understood?
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2004 15:09:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:18 GMT