Re: Reaching a final version of Addendum to BPWG

Hello,

I could have some time to make these changes during this week if you
don't mind.

And yes, I should have rewriten 3.23 to "verify that" and add the "NOT"
as you mention. Even the second check should also add a "NOT":
* Verify that the response is NOT a page asking the user to fix some
data. (if default values are "valid", it wouldn't be needed to fix
anything)

Best regards,

El mar, 15-09-2009 a las 16:04 +0100, Jo Rabin escribió:
> I have only a couple of very minor observations.
> 
> 1) the punctuation used to end bullets and numbered lists is not 
> consistent (the predominant style seems to be to end with a ".")
> 
> 2) Under "Evaluation" the formula "Verify that" is used pretty 
> consistently up to about 3.8. After that it seems to be mainly "Check 
> if". This is not really a problem, because the interpretation is usually 
> "check that the following is true", like "verify that". However in a 
> couple of cases this is not the case, e.g. 3.23:
> 
> Submit the form without selecting any item. This will ensure that 
> defaults, such as preselected values, will be used:
> 
> Check if the response is an error page.
> Check if the response is a page asking the user to fix some data.
> Check if the response, incorrectly, is the original page.
> If there are text or textarea elements that include a default value 
> telling the user what to enter, check that these values do not have to 
> be manually deleted in order for them not to be processed as user input.
> 
> to the pedantically minded, this leaves room for doubt, as "Check if the 
> response is an error page" if read in the same light as other similarly 
> worded injunctions, could be assumed to mean "Verify that the response 
> is an error page" whereas what is actually intended is "Verify that the 
> response is NOT an error page".
> 
> I think the document would actually benefit from a small amount of 
> tidying up in that area - maybe to use "verify that" throughout.
> 
> 3) the names of elements and attributes might benefit from <code> treatment.
> 
> 4) Capitalization of some of the sub-heads e.g. Use of color => Use of 
> Color, Examples of informal evaluation => Examples of Informal Evaluation
> 
> I'd offer to do something on this but have my work cut out trying to do 
> a new draft of CT by next week.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/09/2009 13:10, Phil Archer wrote:
> > Kai, everyone,
> > 
> > I read through this carefully on the way to the conference I'm at today 
> > (ironically about 10 km from Kai's office). I have found a very small 
> > number of utterly trivial typos. I'll correct these when I next get a 
> > chance (end of the week I guess). Given the nature of the changes I plan 
> > to do this without changing the location of the document - unless you 
> > want me to create a new version but that seems a little excessive for 
> > changes like capitalising a letter, adding a space after a comma and so 
> > on ;-)
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Phil.
> > 
> > Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> Francois was so kind to post the, hopefully final, version of the BPWG
> >> Addendum document.
> >>
> >> You may find this document at
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-m
> >> obileOK-pro10-tests-20090914
> >>
> >> Please read it and give your feedback to the group.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My thanks go to Phil, for all of his recent work going through the
> >> document, as well as Jo, Manrique and Dan for all of their additions and
> >> changes.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Kai
> >>
> >>
> > 
>

Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 15:35:56 UTC