- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:03:18 -0700
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Dom, Thanks, it looks good. A few small comments, mostly about the introductory paragraph... At 11:38 AM 1/27/04 +0100, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >survey starts here >------------------------------ >The QA Working Group is working on gathering experiences of Test >Materials >development, so as to better match its deliverables with other Working >Groups needs and expectations. We would appreciate if you could take >the time to answer to the following questions; if some of these are not >applicable to your situation, please let us know why. If any of these >questions is unclear for you, do not hesitate to contact dom@w3.org to >get more details. By when would we like them to reply? (Proposal: "by 27 February, if possible") To where would we like them to reply? (Options: to QAWG list; to QAIG list. I don't have a strong preference. I tend to think QAWG. Does anyone think that the raw replies, in themselves, would be of any interest to the IG?) Is there any issue here about public/member-only information? Do we want to promise any sort of summary or consolidation of the replies? (As we did with our document technologies survey.) Two more comments embedded... >1) Name of the WG Specifications for which you have developed or are >developing Test Materials (if you have not developed test materials yet, >you can answer the questions following the way you plan to do so) > >2) Describe the relationships between the specifications development >and the test material developments (e.g. Test Suite built during CR, >or test cases developed along each feature in the spec, ...)? > >3) What process do you follow to develop your test materials? e.g. how >are new test cases developed, approved, ... (if the process is described >somewhere on the Web, please give us its URI) > >4) Describe the information typically associated with a test case in >your test suite (e.g. name, status, link to specification, ...) Do we want to know anything about how they express the information and/or associated it with the test cases? (I.e., a TCDL). Or do you think this is too detailed? >5) What is the intended coverage of your test suite? (e.g. "each feature >is tested" or "only difficult features are tested","features at risk >are tested", ...) > >6) What parts of your test suite(s) are automated (if any)? Did you use >existing tools to provide this automation or did you develop new ones? Do we want to ask about test results reporting, either as part of this question or a separate question? Or do you think this is too detailed? >7) What is (are) the most challenging aspect(s) you encounter in the >development of the test materials? > >8) What benefits (if any) did the Working Group get from the development >of these test materials? > >9) Any other input you would like to share about your experiences on >these topics. -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00:59 UTC