- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:39:55 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
QAWG -- Please give opinions about this suggested last-minute change to OpsGL. (It is "editorial".) Do you like the idea or not? Today Dan Connolly wrote to the QAIG list... At 09:49 AM 8/29/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >[...] > >I suggest the QA ops guidelines start by telling two stories: > > Project A did all their spec work assuming they'd > do testing and QA later. The spec was finished > in 9 months, but early adopters moaned and groaned > about the ambiguities in the spec and the marketplace > was rife with confusion. It wasn't until 3 years > later that folks were motivated to develop a test > suite. The technology was eventually deployed, because > it was very much needed; but not gracefully at all. > > Project B did test driven development from the start. > The spec and test materials took 18 months to develop, > but by the time they went to REC, they had 4 interoperable > implementations; two of which passed all the test and > two of which were successful commercial products. > Developers raved about the ability to use the test > materials in their development, and to give feedback > on the design before it froze. The user community was > able to use the test materials to objectively point > out defects in the commercial products, allowing them > to be fixed straightforwardly in point releases. > 9 months after the spec went to REC, the marketplace > of interoperable implementations was so well established > that the technology became ubiquitous, and everybody > wanted to be part of the W3C process where the next > new technology was developed. Do you like this idea? It would comprise a new sub-section at the start of the introduction [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/08/qaframe-ops-20030905#introduction (Btw, I think David's suggested addendum to Project A would be good.) -Lofton. P.S. Fyi and for context, we are considering splitting the GL documents in the style of many of the W3C standards: the first HTML file has Title page down through TOC. And then the remaining chapters are split amongst a handful of HTML files. E.g., ** Introduction might be the second file. ** Guidelines third. ** And the rest fourth (Conformance, Terminology, References, Change history, other). There would also be an alternative single-HTML-file version (non-normative) referenced from the cover page. #####
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 18:39:24 UTC