Re: ISSUE-73: Proposed changes to process chapter

Anyone can re open the issue. If it's closed it won't be tracked, so I 
encourage anyone wanting an issue to be reopened to do so. 

I actually don't agree with the spirit of your suggestions, if I 
udnerstand them. I do believe we have to do some usability testing, and 
it's hard to see what would be less than some lo fi with 10 volunteers. 
Your suggested change there seems to indicate we might do less. What would 
it be? We don't need to name names in wsc-usecases, but I expect some 
subset (including the proper one) of Rachna, Maritza, Serge, and Audian to 
be involved. We've got some benchstrength in this area. 

And I expect those same people to pursue the more extensive resources.

So perhaps now is the time for each of them (and anyone else who thinks 
they'll be involved) to say whether or not they agree.

          Mez





Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
07/06/2007 01:00 PM

To
"Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>
cc
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject
Re: ISSUE-73: Proposed changes to process chapter







Umhhh...  I don't think the latest edits actually addresses all the
points I had raised.  Apologies for my lateness in spotting this.

| At a minimum, we will find the resources to do "lo-fi" prototyping
| with a modest number of volunteers (10-20) for each recommendation
| where user feedback appears necessary [Tiny Fingers]. Volunteer
| participants will be found through WG member organizations.

... this is a piece of text that I had raised in the original issue.
I'm still not happy with it, since I believe that we're making
promises that we may not be able to keep.

Proposed rewording:

> The Working Group aims to perform lo fidelity prototyping and
> testing with a modest number of test subjects for each proposed
> practice that involves user feedback [Tiny Fingers].  This will be
> reflected in Candidate Recommendation exit criteria.

That says how we're planning to force ourselves (and the community)
to get these things done, without saying who will do it, or where
we'll get the participants from -- I don't think we need to talk
about the latter point in the note anyway.

| We will pursue resources that allow us to do more extensive
| usability testing, including:

Proposed:

> More extensive user testing will be desirable, and is expected to
> contribute to higher-quality outcomes.  More extensive tests may
> include:

(Once again, I want to describe the ends more than the means of
funding or organizing the tests.)

Mez, do you want me to reopen the issue in order to get these
changes in?

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>








On 2007-06-26 01:02:45 -0000, Close, Tyler J. wrote:
> From: "Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>
> To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:02:45 -0000
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-73: Proposed changes to process chapter 
> List-Id: <public-wsc-wg.w3.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Archived-At: 
http://www.w3.org/mid/08CA2245AFCF444DB3AC415E47CC40AFC820B1@G3W0072.americas.hpqcorp.net

> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 
> Done and closed. See:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/note/#usability-testing
> 
> Tyler
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
>                From: Mary Ellen Zurko
> [mailto:Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com] 
>                Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:08 PM
>                To: Close, Tyler J.
>                Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
>                Subject: ISSUE-73: Proposed changes to process chapter 
> 
> 
> 
>                Discussion has fallen off. I declare concensus. 
> 
> 
>                Editors will make the changes that are concretely 
proposed in: 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007May/0019.html
> 
>                And the fix (sentence completion) in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007May/0035.html
> 
>                And close the issue when they are done. 
> 
>                          Mez
> 
> 
>