W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Outsourcing in QA and Testing

From: Brian Kelly <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:29:46 -0000
To: danield@w3.org
Cc: "'Vijay Sikka'" <vsikka@nirixa.com>, www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <005801c1e236$e0b404d0$d513268a@ukoln.ac.uk>

> Hello Brian

Hi Daniel 

> > One comment that I would make is that there is
> > a need for standardisation on terminology and approaches to QA and 
> > testing in order that testing is independent of the company 
> carrying 
> > out the testing or the tools they use.
> Remember the old Web Characterization Activity ?  
> Would that be of any use ?

Yes, I'm aware of this

>     I'm be interested to know if standardised methodologies for Web 
> site testing is within the scope of this list.
> There is some work going on glossary for QA, Olivier I think is
tracking that.

Yes, have been in touch with him.

> I joined the list as this was
> my main interest, and then found that that the QA group focussed at 
> the QA of Web *standards and protocols* and not *Web sites*.

> Quality of Web content is in scope, but it's limited to compliance
with our standards (format 
> syntax/semantics, accessibility) and usability is not on W3C radar for
now, and I'm not sure that 
> isn't what you're talking about.

Testing of forms should be in scope then.  How about testing of Web
sites against browsers rather than against standards (W3C are interested
in the latter, but users in the former).

Testing of file sizes is relevant to accessibility - but findings aren't
currently reproducible due to ambiguities in how to handle flash
screens, user-agent negotiation, etc.

Thinking about it, this could be part of the WAI groups work on checking

> If Web site
> testing is out-of-scope, I think it would be useful if the W3C QA Web 
> site (and list) provided pointers to relevant fora and resources in 
> this area.

> What exactly is Web site testing for you ?
> Is validator.w3.org doing Web site testing ?

Yes (part of) , but you need something richer and more configurable.  I
appreciate that this is more relevant to the marketplace - my interest
is in ensuring that the results from, say, DrHTML and Netmechanic are
comparable and reproducible.


PS Afraid I'll not be at WWW 2002 
Received on Friday, 12 April 2002 10:30:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC