W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2005

Draft minutes telcon 20050411

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:39:14 +0300
Message-Id: <da604099aaacc7aded38fd05ef80e0c2@ontologicon.com>
To: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

For your review.

---

QA Working Group Teleconference
Monday, 11-April-2005
--
Scribe: [Dimitris Dimitriadis]

Attendees:
(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)
(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)

Regrets:
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, Chair)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST)

Absent:
(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)

Summary of New Action Items:
AI-20050411-1 Tim Draft wording for "Beyond Conformance" section  
20050418

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Apr/0023.html

Minutes:

1.) roll call 11am EDT, membership

2.) routine business
         * mention on final Dublin F2F dates; progress on organization?
	* Test FAQ progress?
	* Tim's questions wrt WCAG2
http://www.w3.org/mid/ 
5.1.1.5.2.20050324090705.00b1fdc0@mailserver.nist.gov
(tb) Purpose was to notify WG of the discussions after the recent F2F  
meeting. I was requesting input from the WG relating to QA-related  
concerns. Techniques document will cover guidelines, however these  
documents will be notes (not rec track). I just wanted to find out if  
there are concerns regarding this direction. There will be no normative  
content to be directly tested against. There is no final decision.
(dh) We need to see what they really mean by this.
(tb) There is a question as to what a successful level of adoption will  
amount to.
(dh) I mean what this means in concrete terms, whether we need to write  
a document about this. As long as they write the guidelines in a way  
that you can test against them, they're probably alright. As long as  
SpecGL is applied to the guidelines, I'm not worried.
(tb) Just wanted to bring it to the group's attention.
(dh) Good to see what direction this is taking, theoretically speaking,  
there's no reason to object now.

3.) SpecGL issues
Only 2 left!
#995 - Old potential Issues
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=995
	* Lofton was to review CR45 to CR57 to see whether he agrees they ought
to be closed as no longer relevant
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/cr-issues.html#x45
(dh) Closed as per Lofton's email to the list.

#1087 - Address accessibility requirements
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1087
	* We agreed during our discussion with the WAI CG to include in our new
"Beyond conformance" section to include a new subsection about
accessibility and possibly other horizontal domains considerations;
let's try to quickly think about what to present and how to present it,
and get someone an action item to draft a proposal
(dh) Can we quickly see what should appear in this section and see who  
can make a draft? Right now we have wording such as "define internal  
process" and "do a thorough review". Add a bit of verbiage explaining  
more about this.
(tb) I can take a stab at it.

Implementation of resolved issues:
* Editors version has an updated table of contents, and a separate list
of requirements/good practices; comments/suggestions?
http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/#table-contents
(dh) ToC follows the principles we've said, also I've added a few  
requirements and good practices. Any comments?

* Editors version has an updated ICS:
  http://www.w3.org/QA/Group/2005/02/qaframe-spec/specgl-ics
with a new "Comments" column, and text inciting to link back to the
reviewed specification;
-> comments/suggestions?
-> a volunteer to complete SpecGL own ICS?
(dh) ICS also updated, I've added a new column to let people add  
comments to the checklist. We said we would complete this, seeing if  
SpecGL matches itself. Volunteer? Open until next telcon, I'll make a  
call for volunteer on the WG list.

* More generally, we need as many people reading the document from top
to bottom to find inconsistencies, etc. due to the # of changes in the
text organization

* Responding to commenters, starting Disposition of Comments
-> needs several volunteers to draft answers to commenters
http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/04/SpecGL-DoC.html
-> how to point people to implemented changes:
   * intermediate WD on /TR/? (cf 3 months rule)
   * WG draft in QA space?
(dh) We need to make sure every commenter gets replies from the WG. We  
need as many people as possible to draft replies to them. Open until  
next week with more people on the call. WGs are expected to publish  
technical reports at least every three months, which is a reason for  
publishing in /TR/. Will try to gather more feedback on the mailing  
list.
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 15:39:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:20 GMT