- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:16:55 -0700
- To: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@sun.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030227203351.02e6eaa0@rockynet.com>
At 05:49 PM 2/27/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>[...]
>We're running out of time here, and I'd like to wrap this up by the end of
>day tomorrow (Friday).While there's always room for improvement, I think
>that this is getting close to "good enough".
It's great! We could go with it as is, or do one more iteration if you
want to make more changes. One aspect that I like is that it's pretty
complete, but I could imagine delivering it in half-time by skipping over a
lot of the detail. Also, I can imagine skipping stuff and dwelling on
other stuff, depending on the group -- it looks flexible.
(Question. 10 slides, what would you guess is the presentation length,
unabridged?).
My only pro-active comment: fix the "for for development".
My opinions on your questions...
>Some specific questions:
>
>* Are we happy with the last two bullets on slide 1 ("Even a small
>investment pays big dividends" ... "DOM, SOAP, SVG Working Groups have
>demonstrated this")? Should we add UAAG to this list, since they're on our
>Success Stories slide?
It doesn't bother me that they are disjoint sets on the two slides, but I
can go either way. Suggestion: change "AA Conformance" to "AA SpecGL
conformance". (Or spell out "Spec Guidelines").
>* How about the Success Stories slide? I provided a single link to each of
>three WGs' activities. Does this slide make sense? Could we add more links
>(eg DOM?) If so, please send suggestions. Is this slide redundant with the
>last bullet of the previous slide? (It does add more data - specifically,
>indicating the area where we think there's something worth looking at.)
I don't think it's redundant -- okay as is -- the context is slightly
different and (as you say) the detail increases.
As I imagine presenting it, I'm have a bit of trouble with the transition
to "Success Stories". If someone has a good talking points to help, that
would be useful. Or ... would it flow better if this "Success Stories" was
2nd slide? What do you think?
>* I added a "Test Guidelines" slide. Do we want to keep it? Reword it?
I can go either way. It is easy enough to move over it quickly, if there
is not time or it's not appropriate for the audience.
>* Can anybody suggest addional links for the References slide? I will
>remove the "What else" when we agree that this is complete.
>
>Of course, you should all feel free to make additional suggestions for
>improvement.
>
>Thanks...
>
>PS: a procedural issue. We talked about producing "Quick Tips" in addition
>to this presentation. Did we decide on how to publish them? (If so, we
>should probably reference them, and link to them, from this presentation.)
>If we are going to publish them, we might want to review them to make sure
>the message they send is consistent with the message this presentation
>sends, and modify them or this, or both if they aren't consistent.
IMO, we won't be able to finish and agree to the Quick Tips in short-term
(Boston). At most, I would say, "we're working on Quick Tips." An
alternative view is: the SpecGL, TestGL, and OpsGL slides *are* Quick
Tips. Or maybe "Really Quick Tips" -- I think Karl's draft SpecGL Quick
Tips is about twice the number of points as the SpecGL slide.
All for now,
-Lofton.
>
>Why QA?
>
> * Investment in QA activities will
> * Promote better, more testable, more implementable specifications
>
> * Reduce the cost of developing specifications
>
> * Increase the quality and interoperability of implementations
>
> * Reduce duplication of test-development effort
> * Even a small investment pays big dividends
>
> * <http://www.w3.org/DOM/>DOM, <http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/>SOAP,
> <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/>SVG Working Groups have
> demonstrated this
>
>
>
>How we can help you
>
> * We can't do your QA work for you
> * We don't have the resources nor the domain-specific expertise
> * We do provide <http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/#docs>guidelines and
> <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/>tools
>
> * We can help avoid duplication of effort
>
> * Use our <http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-qapd>templates,
> measure against our
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/qaframe-spec-ics#checklist-table>checkpoints
>
> * Tell us what else you need
>
>
>
>Success Stories
>
> * Assertion list -
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-testcollection-20020626>SOAP
>
> * Test suite - <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/>SVG
>
> * AA conformance - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/>UAAG
> * What else?
>
>
>
>The Seven Documents
>
> * <http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-intro/>Introduction
> * Roadmap, primer, guide to the other documents
> * <http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-ops/>Operational Guidelines
> * Planning, logistics, operation, and maintenance of WG quality
> processes
> * <http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/>Specification Guidelines
> * How to write clearer, more implementable, more testable
> specifications
> * <http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-test/>Test Guidelines
> * Technologies, tools, methods for writing test materials
>
>
>
>Spec Guidelines (think Testability)
>
> * Scope - define the scope, identifying what needs to conform and how
>
> * Conformance Clause - specify the conformance policy and requirements
>
> * If you must subset - use profiles, modules, functional levels
>
> * Extensions - specify whether and how extensions are allowed
>
> * Tag for later use - identify testable assertions, discretionary items
>
> * Claims - specify how conformance claims and statements are made
>
>
>
>Test Guidelines (think Testing)
>
> * Analyze the specification
>
> * Declare the structure of the test suite
>
> * Document the testing methodology
>
> * Provide test automation and results-reporting framework
>
> * Plan for test development & conformance testing
>
>
>
>Operations Guidelines (think QA)
>
> * Get Started - appoint a QA lead
>
> * Integrate - commit to QA goals and scenario
>
> * Staff - assess and assign appropriate staffing
>
> * Coordinate - synchronize QA and specification deliverables
>
> * Plan - for for development, publication, maintenance
>
> * How? - use OpsGL's
> <http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-charter-20030217.html>charter
> template and
> <http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2003/02/OpsET-qapd-20030217.html>process template
>
>
>
>Feedback & Next Steps
>
> * What do you think of:
> * Our last-call documents?
>
> * Our tools and resources (Library, Matrix, Tools, ...)?
> * Other feedback?
>
> * What would you like us to do next?
> * Review your processes and specs?
>
> * Provide consulting services?
>
> * Document existing best practices?
>
> * Provide templates, tools, test harnesses?
> * Other suggestions?
>
>
>
>References
>
> * Our home pages for <http://www.w3.org/QA>QA, the
> <http://www.w3.org/QA/WG>QA WG, and the <http://www.w3.org/QA/IG>QA IG
>
> * <http://www.w3.org/QA/TheMatrix>The Matrix
>
> * <http://www.w3.org/QA/Library/>QA library
>
> * <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/>Tools
>
> * What else?
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 23:22:36 UTC