- From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:52:07 -0800
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Cc: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Thank you, Ian, >I would recommend sticking with A/AA/AAA just because that system is already familiar to people within W3C. >Is there an important reason for changing nomenclature? I originated this because "Level-AAA" seemed to be confusing to me, but if "AAA" is the established preferred way in W3C , let's definitely change back to "AAA". > A Working Group conforms to the "QA Framework: Process & Operational > Guidelines" if the Working Group meets at least all Conformance Level > 1 requirements. We could change it introducing Level X... The phrase itself would be useful to enable convenient conformance assertions for WG as a whole. ...A Working Group conforms to the "QA Framework: Process & Operational Guidelines" Level X if the Working Group meets all Conformance Level X requirements. -----Original Message----- From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 5:05 PM To: Lofton Henderson Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Draft Conformance Clause Lofton Henderson wrote: > [snip] -------------------- > 4. Conformance > > This section defines conformance of Working Group processes and > operations to the requirements of this specification. The > requirements of this specification are detailed in the checkpoints of > the preceding "Guidelines" chapter of this specification, and apply to > the Working Group QA-related documents and deliverables required by > this specification. > > This section defines three levels of conformance to this > specification: > * Conformance Level 1: all Priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied; > > * Conformance Level 2: all Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are > satisfied; > * Conformance Level 3: all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are > satisfied; Here's why we chose "Level Double-A" instead of "Level 2": It wasn't clear to people that "2" meant "Priority 1 AND 2 requirements are met." It could be interpreted as "no priority 1 requirements are met, only those P2 and below (P3).". I would recommend sticking with A/AA/AAA just because that system is already familiar to people within W3C. Is there an important reason for changing nomenclature? > A Working Group conforms to the "QA Framework: Process & Operational > Guidelines" if the Working Group meets at least all Conformance Level > 1 requirements. I don't recommend that, because it means that you can say "I conform to the document" without saying how much. For WCAG 1.0, you have to be explicit: "This page conforms level A." I don't think people should go around saying "I conform to the QA Guidelines" when the conformance granularity is not binary (conforms/doesn't conform). Since there are at least three levels (1,2,3 or A,AA,AAA) I think you need to require people to be explicit for *all* conformance claims. So, I think the above sentence sets the wrong expectations that one might be able to talk about conformance in a generic sense. - Ian > To make an assertion about conformance to this document, specify: > * The guidelines title: "QA Framework: Process & Operational > Guidelines" > * The guidelines URI: [...tbd...] > * The conformance level satisfied: "Level 1", "Level 2", or > "Level 3". > > Example: > This QA processes and operations of this Working Group [???] conform > to W3C's "QA Framework: Process & Operational Guidelines", available > at [...tbd...], Level 2. > ----- end ----- -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 20:52:40 UTC