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

LC-70 -- redesign checklists

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:35:17 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030625162229.01ef08c0@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa@w3.org

For email discussion (and teleconference resolution)...

Ref:  http://www.w3.org/lc-issues#x70

While looking finishing off the closure of the OpsGL issues and updating 
the issues list, I found one left.  It applies to OpsGL, SpecGL, and TestGL.

It asks for a redesign of the layout and content of the checklists.  I'm 
not particularly attached to what we have now, but there are a couple of 
bits in the proposal that go beyond formatting:

1.) change "Yes No N/A" to "Yes No N/A Pending"
2.) allocate 40% of the table width to a new "Comments" field.

Given that the ICS checklist is a test report or implementation conformance 
form, I have qualms about "pending" and "comments".  The guideline-order 
checklist could be considered similarly.

Per the Crete f2f discussions, a "test material" for one of the GL 
documents is NOT the same as our checklists.  We agreed that a SpecGL or 
OpsGL test material would be something like a questionnaire, that had a 
question for each individual conformance requirement,  Note, NOT per 
checkpoint, but per conformance requirement, of which there might be 
several in a checkpoint.

The question(s) would be something to the effect of:  "is this conformance 
requirement satisfied, not satisfied, or n/a, and if satisfied, then how is 
it satisfied?"

I could see a "Comments" field on a per-conformance-requirement 
questionnaire.  I still don't see any place for "Pending".

Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 18:35:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT