W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Updated version of the test survey (AI-20040126-1 done)

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:01:37 +0100
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1075280497.9501.347.camel@stratustier>
Le mer 28/01/2004 ŗ 00:03, Lofton Henderson a ťcrit :
> Thanks, it looks good.  A few small comments, mostly about the introductory 
> paragraph...

> By when would we like them to reply?  (Proposal:  "by 27 February, if 
> possible")

Added (FWIW, if we use WBS, we get to specify the date of end of review
in a more prominent place, too).

> 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?)

www-qa-wg@w3.org sounds good to me, but...

> Is there any issue here about public/member-only information?

There might be, indeed. If we don't use WBS, maybe I'll ask them to send
their review to dom@w3.org, cc w3c-archive@w3.org?

> Do we want to promise any sort of summary or consolidation of the 
> replies?  (As we did with our document technologies survey.)

I don't think we need to promise it; but I think we should make one.

> >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?

I think this is too detailed, since it will be understood by too few
people. I expect that if people have developed such a language, they are
likely to point us to it at some point in their questionnaire.

> >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?

I think it would be useful, but I haven't found a way to formulate it in
a way that I thought would be understandable by enough people; do you
have a proposal?

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 04:01:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:35 UTC