Re: Informal comments on OpsGL and the QA Framework as a whole

Dom (et al) --

Unless someone objects, I am going to cut-paste these comments into a new 
LC issue, with you as originator.  This is to ensure that we look at 
them.  As you say, they don't have any formal standing, but they are good 
comments and their source is important.

I have one question for clarification question...

At 04:53 PM 4/15/03 +0200, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
>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.

Just to be clear, this refers to the Introduction chapter (section 1) of 
OpsGL (& SpecGL), as opposed to the whole document "QA 
Framework:  Introduction".  Correct?


>(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 Wednesday, 16 April 2003 10:59:47 UTC