Re: Comments on draft Browser Testing and Tools Working Group

Hi Mike,

On 19.7.2011 15:49, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> Shadi Abou-Zahra<shadi@w3.org>, 2011-07-18 09:49 +0200:
>
>> Hi Mike, Philippe,
>>
>> As discussed, please find some comments on the draft Browser Testing and
>> Tools Working Group $Id: browser-testing-charter.html,v 1.11 2011/07/11
>> 14:05:14 mike Exp $. The comments are based on input from Michael Cooper and
>> Jeanne Spellman though they may have additions.
>>
>> #1. Title<->  scope mismatch
>>
>> The WG title "Browser Testing and Tools" seems significantly broader than
>> the scope described. A clearer title would be "Web Applications Testing and
>> Tools Working Group" or similar.
>
> I chose the title to make it clear what class of applications the proposed
> deliverables are limited to. They are meant to be implemented in Web
> browsers (instead of, say, in authoring applications).

Just for the record, I continue to think that the current title is too 
broad and misleading. It is a significant mismatch to the scope.


>> #2. Scope missing APIs relevant to accessibility
>>
>> In previous discussions Michael Cooper has explained the relevance of APIs
>> such as UIAutomation. The relevant references are currently linked from the
>> "draft notes" section but not described at all in section 1 "Scope". Without
>> a description of the relationship between these APIs there is a risk of
>> missing to benefit from existing work (with key players in the field like
>> Apple and Microsoft), and re-creating these solutions anew.
>>
>> We suggest explaining the relationship to platform APIs and APIs that are
>> essential for accessibility as part of this work, even if there is no
>> guarantee that the particular instances of these APIs will be part of the
>> work. For instance, section 1.1 says:
>>
>> [[
>> as well as consider any other potential APIs useful in performing automated
>> testing of Web applications
>> ]]
>
> I removed that phrase from the charter.
>
>> This could be expanded in another sentence or two to describe what the
>> "other potential APIs" are. For instance:
>>
>> [[
>> The group will also consider other potential APIs useful in performing
>> automated testing of Web applications such as UIAutomation. In particular,
>> the group will consider relevant requirements for accessibility testing of
>> web applications.
>> ]]
>
> I added mention of Microsoft UI Automation and Apple UI Automation in the
> Dependencies and Liaisons section:
>
>    http://www.w3.org/2011/08/browser-testing-charter.html#other-technologies
>
>> Similar applies to section 1.2, which includes work that involves the
>> console and platform. It is essential to explain the relationship to the
>> platform APIs in this section too.
>
> The Console API has no relationship to platform APIs. The actual "console"
> it writes to is a REPL that runs a built-in tool within the browser and
> that has no interaction with the platform the browser runs on.
>
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-eval-print_loop

Thank you for the new rewrite. We can live with it.


>> #3. Milestones (minor typo)
>>
>> Rec date should be "Feb 2013" rather than "Feb 2012".
>
> Thanks -- fixed.
>
>> #4. Dependencies with W3C Groups
>>
>> Please add "Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group" and "Protocols and
>> Formats Working Group" to the list.
>
> OK, added.
>
>> #5. Dependencies with External Groups
>>
>> Please consider organizations such as:
>>   - Accessibility Interoperability Alliance (AIA)
>>    --<http://www.atia.org/aia/>
>>   - Open Ajax Alliance
>>    --<http://www.openajax.org/>
>
> OK, added.
>
>    --Mike

Thanks,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 19:36:22 UTC