ACTION-186: Review process chapter of Note

To finalize my review of the Note (and discharge ACTION-186), here's
a bunch of change proposals against section 10 the Note.  Note that
I'm not taking the published Working Draft, but the latest editor's
draft as my baseline.  Quoted text that uses '|' as a quote mark is
from the draft; '>' is used for my proposed changes.

In 10.3, we say:

|  Code to demonstrate and test the WG's recommendations on display
|  of security context information will be implemented in one or
|  more web user agents, as extensions to them.  The most likely web
|  user agents we will use as implementation platforms are web
|  browsers. To ensure interoperability and generality of the
|  recommendations, they will be implemented in the context of at
|  least two web user agents. Entrance to Proposed Recommendations
|  required two interoperable implementations of each feature of a
|  specification.

I would like this text to be clearer in separating statements of
fact, predictions, and expectations.  I'd also like this to be a bit
clearer on the scope of what is implemented -- "display of security
context information" is subtly narrower than the overall scope.

Proposed rewording:

>  The Working Group aims to demonstrate and test the WG's
>  recommendations on usable and robust communication of security
>  context information through implementations within the framework
>  of one or more web user agents.  The most likely web user agents
>  to serve as platforms for such implementations are web browsers.
>  To demonstrate that recommendations are sufficiently general and
>  interoperable, we expect implementation in the context of at least
>  two web user agents.

I wonder if we want to make the implementation in the context of at
least two web user agents an additional success criterion for CR --
we can certainly do so.  Maybe worth a discussion.

|  All test development and testing is iterative. The
|  recommendations may need to be modified on the basis of all
|  three types of testing. starts when work on the specification
|  starts.
   
There's an incomplete sentence here.

|  Usability testing will verify that the recommendations provide
|  usable display of security context information. The type of
|  usability testing we do will depend on both the direction of our
|  recommendations and the resources the team is able to tap into.

"Team" is, in the W3C context, often used to refer to the Staff.
I'd like to avoid any misunderstandings here, and therefore propose
to say "Working Group."

|  While members of the Working Group typically develop tests, we
|  require specific outreach in this area. 
   
|  One area for outreach is to parts of WG member organizations not
|  specifically represented by active members of the WG,
|  particularly existing usability testing groups. The other area
|  for outreach is to organizations actively involved in usability
|  testing of security context information, including academic and
|  industry research organizations. 

I think the paragraph above includes a bit more discussion about
internals than is useful.

>  While Working Group members and their organizations are expected
>  to provide resources for usability testing, the Working Group
>  aims to attract contributions from a broader community,
>  including from academic and industry research organizations
>  actively involved in usability testing of security context
>  information.

And further:

|  At a minimum, we will find the resources to do "lo-fi"
|  prototyping for usability testing [[153]Tiny Fingers]. Volunteer
|  participants will be found through WG member organization.

I read this as a commitment that we're making toward the community
overall.  I hope everybody is on board with that.

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

I agree with the substance of this, but wonder if we can find
wording that is a bit more engaging for folks possibly able to
provide such resources.

Thoughts, anyone?

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

Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 01:20:55 UTC