W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > March 2005

Re: Draft minutes Boston F2F, 4 Friday 2005 PM

From: Patrick Curran <Patrick.Curran@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:30:23 -0500
To: QAWG <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <4228B74F.3000101@sun.com>

QA Working Group Face-to-Face, Boston
Friday PM, 4-March-2005
Scribe:  Patrick Curran

(PC) Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
(KD) Karl Dubost (W3C, WG co-chair)
(DH) Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux (W3C)
(LR) Lynne Rosenthal (NIST - IG co-chair)
(MS) Mark Skall (NIST)
(RK) Richard Kennedy (Boeing)
(TB) Tim Boland (NIST)

(DD) Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)
(LH) Lofton Henderson (CGMO - WG co-chair)


Summary of New Action Items:


Agenda: http://www.w3.org/QA/2005/03/f2f


1:00 Joint meeting with WCAG
Present from WCAG

Al Gilman [AG]: Protocols & Formats WG
Wendy Chisholm [WC]: WCAG staff contact
Michael Cooper [MC]: chair: WCAG Techniques Task Force

1) WCAG would like the QAWG to address accessibility in SpecGL

[DH], [KD]:
We have addressed this (or will) in our scope statement. (see AI SpecGL 
- Add to Scope)
This is a content issue.

[WC]: we recommend specs should contain test assertions: where should
the recommendation come from if not from QA?

[LR]: different groups have their own wishes (eg, security). We wrote specgl
from a conformance perspective - these other issues are very important, but
just out of scope given our approach.

[PC]: can we include a checklist somewhere? The list of stuff a good spec
should contain/address is a good thing.

[LR]: how about adding it to the new appendix (explains this to the WCAG 
accessibility, internationalization, device independence, security

[WC]: where does the recommendation that test suites be written come in?

[DH]: this too is out of scope
[KD]: this is a separate work-item

[AG]: Given the "QA Framework", he's expecting an overview document that 
everything together. The informative appendix would allow us to provide the

[LR]: the Primer also provides some of this overview

[AG]: where's the "executive overview"?

[WC]: why can't you say "consider this stuff" and provide the list and the

[AG]: QAWG is in fact saying that the appendix will serve this purpose.
But then goes on to say - make the examples we provide dual-purpose; they
can address accessibility.

As a "consumer advocate" I can't see why you don't include what we're asking
for. Only a very specialist QA person or a document-centric person can 
your "scope" argument.

[LR]: Some of these requirements should come from W3C management. If we 
inserted these requirements, how could we test/measure conformance?

Mark: look at the scope of this group. Our background is in testing, and in
quality. Need for precise, clear, unambiguous testable spec. What WCAG is
asking of us addresses worthy goals, but it's orthogonal to our work & our
charter. Should come from management. We don't know how to test what you're
asking for.

[WC]: I understand the argument about "non-testable".

[DH]: the "out of scope" argument is also significant

[WC]: WCAG is trying to follow SpecGL. There are lots of interdependencies.
QAWG has a major role to play. For the Web Accessibility Initiative to meet
its goals, they need QA help.

[TB]: one way to measure whether an accessibilty goal was met, CSS3 specs
try to use accessible examples, and also discusses accessibility in their
introduction (design principle).

[MC]: Accessibility requirements can at least be verifiable if not
testable, using the checklist approach adopted by WCAG.

[DH]: Yes, we could add a section requiring that specs address these other
issues, but we are just too overloaded. We have defined our scope, and
we can't/shouldn't change now (would dilute our efforts). We're trying
for a minimalistic SpecGL. We wish we could have pushed more of our
ideas into the Process Document. Even after SpecGL becomes a recommendation
most groups will probably ignore it.

[WC]: we should be working together

[DH]: agreed

[KD]: Requirements should be added to WGs' charters. This would be more
effective. Guidelines for charters would be a better place to address
these requirements. Putting this into SpecGL would open a Pandora's box.
We are addressing how to write a spec rather than design a technology.

[AG]: How do we ensure that specs have "the right stuff" in them (address
the content rather than the form). This question should be addressed
when the 'requirements document' is created.

[DH]: What problem are we trying to solve? Some examples?

[WC]: HTML 4.0.1 mentions addressibility, but ineffectively (eg,
access keys). SVG spec used to reference UA Accessibility Guidelines
and required conformance to those guidelines.

[PC]: We are focusing on form rather than content. We are very
sympathetic, but it's not our business to talk about what a good
spec should *contain* rather than the form it takes.

[DH]: agrees.

[AG]: has a concern that certain messages get out. W3C documents should
be spreading the messages. Won't the appendix do this?

[DH]: explains that the appendix will address process issues rather than
objectively verifiable aspects of the spec.

[AG]: can we use this section to reinforce the messages. Use the examples.

[DH]: the QA team (as opposed to the WG) is certainly willing to spread
these messages.

[LR]: appendix could be labelled "beyond conformance"

[WC]: understands the "out of scope" arguments - reinforces that this
is a really important issue

[LR]: maybe we shouldn't call it an appendix. Part 2?

[DH]: emphasizes it won't be normative.

[WC]: main concern was to have the message heard

[AG]: main concern is to ensure that the SpecGL doc will promote the 
He believes that QAWG have offered to do this. Accepts that our scope is
what it is.

[KD]: points out that Webarch document provides a similar disclaimer to
ours ("accessibility is out of scope")

[AG]: expected QA group to play a stronger role than that...

General discussion: importance of the QA work. How can we recruit more

[WC]: there are QA people within the individual WGs.

[DH]: people are willing to work on tests, but not on the high-level
theory that we're engaged in.

[KD]: people are willing to work on their specific stuff but not
necessarily on general-purpose stuff.

[LR]: there are benefits to sharing

[WC]: perhaps the group should be transformed into a coordination group.

[DH]: we tried this last year - asking test folks from various WGs whether
they would be willing to work together (just on a mailing list). No real

[LR] and [KD] leave for the airport at 2:00 pm

2) Issues/questions raised by WCAG in response to their attempts to to
conform to Spec GL

QAWG will respond by email. [WC] will respond if any additional


Next telecon will be on Mar 14.

Adjourn: 2:20 pm
Received on Friday, 4 March 2005 19:29:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:38 UTC