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

Re: LC-110 Team comments

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: 12 May 2003 09:12:17 +0200
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <1052723538.28233.988.camel@stratustier>
Le jeu 08/05/2003 ŗ 13:29, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> LC-110.4
> =====
> The intents of the priorities/degrees is not always clear. Proposal [DH]: 
> we should probably emphasize somewhere that the minimal recommended degree 
> is to be AA conformant (or that is the intention of the WG to request it to 
> be the lowest level for work in W3C)
> Discussion.  AA is to be the minimum?  I thought that A was our goal. 

What I meant by minimum was "what we think WG should do" (ie A is the
bare minimum, but if you really want to do QA, you'll have to go AA).

> I 
> note that we did set our CR criteria as:  for each of the P1 & P2 
> checkpoints (i.e. the set required for AA), find two <things> that conform 
> to XxxGL.  But I thought that our goal for required WG conformance was at 
> least A-conforming.  (This is the subject of QAWG issues #16 and #71, but 
> the level is not specified there.)

Ok, so I guess I was wrong. Which stresses the need to clarify that in
the document itself :)

> LC-110.7
> =====
> The introduction needs to be much more efficient to read. Proposal [DH?]: 
> some kind of an executive summary rather than the long prose we currently have.
> Discussion.  Some of the prose is there as a consequence of SpecGL 
> compliance.  Some is there to clarify the contents of the document.  Some 
> is "semi-normative" (e.g., Terminology).  In fact, numbers 110.5 and 110.6 
> suggest to add *more* clarification to the Introduction.  It is not clear 
> what could be removed, to implement the "...summary rather than long prose.."
> Proposal.  Clarification from originators.  Could originators be more 
> specific?  Do you mean "rather than", or do you mean to preface it with an 
> exec summary?  If "rather than", could you please propose what bits of the 
> intro should be eliminated?  Would you like to propose a "for example" 
> executive summary that meets your proposal?

I meant "rather than". The truth is that right now you have to read
around 3 pages of prose before going into the meaty stuff (the
guidelines). What I was specifically thinking of was to reduce the prose
aspect of it, that is making it something lighter to read than those
long paragraphs (to be honest, just after the call that generated these
comments, I read:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html "How people read on the Web?"
which suggested to me that we should use more emphasis where necessary,
more concise sentences, more bullet lists and so on).

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 03:12:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC