Informal comments on OpsGL and the QA Framework as a whole

Hi all,

A couple weeks ago, Karl and I organized a project review of the QA
OpsGL for the W3C Team. We didn't actually have time to finish the
presentation Karl had prepared because of the number of early comments
we had in the presentation.

Here is an informal summary of the comments we got; please note that
these comments don't have any real standing, but we should probably put
some careful attention to them, since the staff contacts and the
management team are among the most important people to convince if we
want to go forward:
- QA is very important, and the QA WG has the right goals
- there were a lot of discussions regarding the writing style we adopted
for the framework, namely the fact that we use RFC keywords in
conformance requirements. Some people thought it was too "aggressive",
other felt it was the right thing to do
- the table in OpsGL GL 1 caused much confusion and was deemed as
not-understandable, which I think we already more or less agree with
- the intents of the priorities/degrees is not always clear: we should
probably emphasize somewhere that the minimal recommended degree is to
be AA conformant (or that is the intention of the WG to request it to be
the lowest level for work in W3C)
- generally speaking, the distinction between GL and ExTech was not
always clear; we probably need to rework the introductory sections to
clarify that
- the summarized view (ICS/Checklists) are not easy enough to find, and
are not explicitly recommended enough; again, that means some re-working
of the introduction
- another comment was that the introduction needs to be much more
efficient to read; some kind of an executive summary rather than the
long prose we currently have.

(note that the presentation was about OpsGL, but most of the comments
above apply equally to SpecGl).

There was no time to get into the substantive issues (the content of the
GL), because the discussion derived on the difficulties we encountered
to get our docs reviewed.

Again, these comments have no standing process-wise, but I think they
are often fair, and we ought to take into account.

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux -

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 10:53:35 UTC