W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > September 2004

Re: Comments on GEO Test

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:42:25 +0100
Message-ID: <413F0C41.5000507@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>
CC: public-i18n-geo@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org

Hi Al,

I largely agree with your comments ...

Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> Tests themselves are best multi-use and should not internally be bound 
> to a 'who.'  Test plans will
> identify who should engage in what test activities where in the 
> [economy, the digital ecology, the
> infosphere].  The test plan will then detail the tests used and the 
> rollups to be performed on the
> results of the individual tests.  The latter is where the normative 
> criteria enter into the picture.

Agree - but ... an initial identification of some potential users for 
the tests is likely to be helpful in making it clear what to do with the 
test.

> 

> The required parts of a test are:
>  - what to do
>  -- condidtions to control
>  -- actions to take
> - what to observe and record
>

Agree - I guess I feel that these four things could be clearer in the 
GEO tests - probably at the expense of making explanatory material less 
prominent.

> have two customers for your work product, not just one. Authoring
> interests want to know what works in browsers today, not just what
> should work per the published writ.

Agreed.

> 
> The main problem with this page is that it only exercises the <link>
> option and fails to compare it with comparable examples of <a> links
> to other-language alternates.  It would help to structure the experiment
> with parallel entities so as to make the comparison easier.
> 

Sounds like a different page to me - it's always hard to prioritise test 
work, there's so much that could be tested and never enough effort 
available. I think making the use of the current tests would be 
valuable, and I don't think I know enough about the remit of GEO to 
suggest which areas they should prioritise for new tests.

> Make that comparison and it should be obvious what authors should do.
> 
> Yes, this test could do better at quantifying the outcomes to record.
> 
> But no, we should not limit "tests" to experiments with binary outcomes
> aligned with normative provisions in some reference.  Because the world
> around us is going to call _repeatable stimulus examples_ 'tests' and we
> should get use to it.
> 
Agreed

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 13:43:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:35 UTC