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

Re: LC-110 Team comments

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:07:38 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030512084439.04583db0@rockynet.com>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

At 09:12 AM 5/12/03 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>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.
>
>[...] Which stresses the need to clarify that in
>the document itself :)

This raises the issue of whether the document itself is the place to try to 
express the degree of "manditoriness", or whether that happens elsewhere 
(W3C Process, Pubrules, Director's convention, ...).


> > 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.
> > [...]
>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).

Executive summary (of the below):  Specific details needed.  Full prototype 
replacement Introduction desirable.

Discussion.

Most of what is in there (OpsGL "Introduction") is in response to previous 
comments and requests.  Indeed, this set of comments from Team requests two 
additional clarification in the introduction, which would each be another 
couple of sentences.  Some of what is in the "Introduction" is required by 
SpecGL.

Section by section:
-----

1.1.Scope & Goals.  3 sentences in 2 paragraphs (looks minimal, req'd by 
SpecGL.  Could turn 2nd sentence into a 4-bullet list).

1.2. Class of Product & Audience.  5 sentences in 3 paragraphs (req'd by 
SpecGL.  Could use bullets for 2nd & 3rd sentences).

1.3. Motivation & Expected Benefits.  5 long prose-y paragraphs.  Could be 
thrown out, condensed, and/or put in appendix.

1.4  Relationship to other specifications.  (Where this fits in the 
Framework -- sort of an extensions of the "Scope" definition, I 
think.)  4-5 sentences and a bullet list.  Eliminate?  Condense?

1.5  Understanding and using this document.  I think this is important, and 
don't see much opportunity to condense.

1.6  Checkpoint priorities.  Useful to help user understand the priorities 
system.  Probably not essential.

Could you or someone give section by section suggestions to improve 
this?  Or offer draft replacement introduction?  The opportunities to 
condense further don't seem great, other than 1.3?

-Lofton.

1.7  Terminology.  Essential.
1.5
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 11:05:10 UTC

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