- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:41 -0700
- To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031117111210.026a1800@localhost>
Here are a bunch of minor editorial suggestions. Some of these I already mentioned in telecon today. At 12:16 PM 11/12/03 -0500, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: >[...] > >********************************************************** >QA: take time now or pay later Suggested section title: "Quality -- invest now or pay later", or "Specification quality -- invest now or pay later" Also ... we agreed to keep the following paragraph (below). I'd suggest that it ought to be like a Preface or Foreword (maybe with some interesting offsetting CSS styling), and move the section title down after it. Editorial suggestion (below): change "quality-built guidelines" to "quality guidelines". (Double entendre conveys the original meaning and another as well.) >Quality is never achieved by chance... it is the result of endless >research, experience, skilled craftsmanship and the uncompromising >devotion to the ideal that quality is never out of style. W3C QA WG offers >the world's most complete line of quality-built guidelines...over three >models to choose from...each the leader in styling, performance and >value.(From http://www.radiophile.com/tomaqual.jpg) (Move section title here.) >FACT: Software development projects typically spend 40%-50% of their total >effort on avoidable rework. CLAIM: Specification development also spends >a significant amount on avoidable rework. > >SpecGL >· It helps ensure …. >· It provides … >· It improves the readability, implementability, and testability of >the specification >· It shows … Does "It" at the start of each bullet add anything? >Different Stakeholders use of SpecGL: (reflect their benefit, interest, >or need) Suggestion: "Different stakeholders benefit differently" (and we agreed in telecon that we should find a better word than "stakeholders", for which I don't have a suggestion now.) >· For specification developers: early understanding of conformance >concepts, less rework or scrap, less burn-our of editors, Ed: "burn-out" >· For implementers: helps to target areas of spec that are of >interest. Don’t need to read entire spec just the parts that you will >implement. For example, if building a >· Test Developer. Test Assertions are tagged, conformance is well >defined "Identified" or "isolated" might be better than "tagged" (given what SpecGL actually requires). >· W3C member. specs get developed faster, can implement sooner and >faster, >· W3C organization. reputation enhanced, recommendations faster and >higher quality, reduced maintenance Suggestion: "faster, cheaper, and higher quality. I volunteered to redraft the following (to make it more SpecGL-specific, and less general-QA "preaching to the choir"). I'll do that separately. >QA is Important >It may seem wacky to take precious time now, but integrating QA practices >into every step of the specification writing process will pay off. >· It is a well-established fact that the sooner a defect (e.g., >ambiguity, hole in the specification) is found the less expensive it is to >fix. >· Early QA lifecycle activities help increase the overall >effectiveness and efficiency of specification development. >· Early QA involvement allows evaluation of important planning, >design, and development decisions with respect to how these decisions aid >the testability of the specification. >· Continuous QA activities can reduce the amount of redrafting or >scraping text, the number comments to resolve, and the time to publication. > >Invest in QA and get to Recommendation faster by spending less time >rewriting the specification, by fostering the development of test >materials, and by facilitating the development of implementations. Previous paragraph is redundant -- I think everything is said elsewhere. Would anything be lost by deleting it? >When do QA We discussed a new title. I like something along the lines of "How and when to use SpecGL". But I can live with any of the suggestions, as long as we replace the generic and vague "QA" with the specific "SpecGL". >Use SpecGL to develop a quality specification that is useful to the >intended users and that is presented in an accurate, clear, complete and >unbiased manner. Each guideline contributes to improving the quality of >the final specification by leading you through a series of checkpoints. >· Use SpecGL in the beginning to get organized: think about the >scope, how the technology will be implemented, what needs to conform, ways >to subdivide the technology, and ways to allow variation among >implementations. >· Use SpecGL while writing the specification as a cheat sheet: to >make sure you haven’t forgotten something and for ideas on how to describe >something. >· Use SpecGL during document preparation as a guide to markup: to >aid in navigating the document, to indicate discretionary items, and to >call out requirements and test assertions. >· Use SpecGL at the end of the writing process to see if you missed >anything. I suggest a new section title here. Something like "It's easy", or "Making it easy", or ... >The use of standardized approaches, frameworks, and tools can reduce the >costs associated with specification development. Over time, we hope to >augment the Examples and Techniques with more tools, templates, and >examples to help you implement the SpecGL principles faster and/or more >easily. We also plan to work with you, as you develop your >specifications, in applying the SpecGL. > >Evidence >(examples of WGs experience in doing QA and/or using SpecGL - e.g., SVG, UAAG) TBD. But a comment: we should choose carefully for the SpecGL context. Different WGs have had different strengths in quality practices -- test suite development, exemplary specifications, interesting operational setup, etc. -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 17 November 2003 13:33:17 UTC