Final Minutes QAWG Teleconference March 14 2005

QA WG TELECONFERENCE MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005


SCRIBE: Tim Boland


ATTENDEES:

KD-Karl Dubost(W3C, Chair)
DH-Dominique Hazael-Massieux (W3C)
PC-Patrick Curran (Sun Microsystems)
TB-Tim Boland (NIST)
DM-David Marston (guest-IBM Research)
LH-Lofton Henderson (CGMO)
LR-Lynne Rosenthal (NIST)
RK-Richard Kennedy (Boeing)
MS-Mark Skall (NIST)


REGRETS:



ABSENT:

Dimitris Dimitriadis (Ontologicon)



AGENDA:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2005Mar/0063.html




SUMMARY OF NEW ACTION ITEMS:


AI-20050314-01: PC to investigate hosting in Dublin and report back by next 
week
AI-20050314-02: KD to update issues document per decisions made (***in one 
week***?)
AI-20050314-03: KD to synch QA Glossary with SpecGL Glossary in one week's time
AI-20050314-04: LH to review CR-45 to CR-57 and report status back at next
                 teleconference
AI-20050314-05: KD to propose two examples by end of week for #983
AI-20050314-06: KD to reword original proposal slightly per DH's 
suggestions for
                 #1044 in one week
AI-20050314-07: KD to implement new numbering scheme and create linking 
table for
                 #1058 in one week
AI-20050314-08: KD to create and format new section per discussion for #1144
                 in one week's time
AI-20050314-09: (GENERAL) KD to update issues document per this meeting
                 (**in one week***?)


-----------------------


JUNE VENUE:



PC cannot host in June, but is available for July.
Possibilities were discussed as: Sophia (France)
around Advisory Committee meeting time
(first week of June), or meeting in July in Dublin.
It was decided to pursue the option of Dublin on July 19-21 for the next
QAWG face-to-face meeting.
There should be no impact on end-of-charter work if the meeting were
to be moved to July.

ACTION: PC will investigate hosting in Dublin and report back by next week


---------------------------


NEXT TELECONFERENCES:



There will be a QAWG teleconference on March 21.

KD and DH will not be able to attend a QAWG teleconference on March 28,
and so it was decided to cancel the March 28 QAWG teleconference.

KD will be away for the April 4 and April 11 QAWG teleconferences.  PC will
chair the April 4 QAWG teleconference, and DH will chair the April 11 QAWG
teleconference.



-----------------------------


OTHER ROUTINE BUSINESS



TB reported that discussions of the WCAG items as reported in the Boston
QAWG face-to-face meeting summary minutes have been made available to the
WCAG WG, and WCAG WG representatives have a WCAG action item to respond to
those discussions with any concerns by the end of March.



KD mentioned the importance of detail in taking minutes and action items
(because such detail makes Bugzilla easier to manage); in particular, it
is important to be specific about next steps (clear statement of resolution),
who has action items (if any) pertaining to the resolution, and proposed
dates of completion of said action items.



------------------------------------------


SPECGL ISSUES




#995 - KD proposed resolutions of these "old potential" issues.
All issues are currently closed except for issue 18 and issue 23.  After
discussion, it was decided to close issues 18 and 23 also.



CR-29 - It was decided that this issue should be closed, since it is being
  addressed.



CR-33 to CR-41 and CR-59 - Jeremy Carroll is satisfied with the resolution
of these issues, so these issues will be closed.



CR-42 -  LH agrees with the proposed resolution, since there is a test
  assertion definition.  Is this definition also in QA Glossary?
ACTION KD to synch QA Glossary with SpecGL Glossary in one week's time.
It was pointed out that it is good to have two separate
glossaries (QA Glossary and SpecGL Glossary) for printing and ease of
access purposes.  DH has also linked a checklist from the WG home page to
  make sure necessary items have been accounted for per this issue.



CR-43 - DH mentioned that the SpecGL requirements are by themselves not test
assertions, but conformance requirements; similarly the SpecGL good practices
  are not test assertions. There is currently no intention to develop test
assertions for SpecGL, because there is no need to develop test assertions
for SpecGL. The SpecGL document addresses conformance requirements directly
  without the need for test assertions.

MS had questions re: this issue, in terms of possible relationship with
associated issues; MS stated the importance of resolving such issues in the
  appropriate order, considering any dependencies upon different issues   MS
  also mentioned the value of clarifyinga specification with test assertion
  development (gets an end result, and gets useful information
  along the way while developing said end result).

It was pointed out that there is a
difference between including/publishing test assertions in a document, with
  producing test assertions separately from a document, which may be a good
idea depending on resources and need. PC stated that just "tweaking" the
requirements of a specification to get test assertions may not add much value).

After some discussion, it was decided that CR-43 is moot, and so should be
closed.




CR-44 - This issue is closed since the QAWG is not requiring test assertions.




CR-45 to CR-57 - These issues were raised by LH in conjunction with the SpecGL
  CR document, and may not make sense anymore.  Is it worthwhile to still work
  on them or to close them? ACTION: LH to review CR-45 to CR-57 and report 
back
at next teleconference as to whether any
(or all) of them should be closed.



CR-58 - This issue will be closed, by general agreement.




#983 - Three options were presented pertaining to this issue, as follows: (1)
provide no examples, but recommend for the future, (2) dropping the good 
practice,
  and (3) turn the good practice into a technique.  ATAG and UAAG were 
mentioned
  as possible examples to be provided.
ACTION - KD to propose two examples by end of week pertaining to #983




#1041 - LR will complete AI-20050303-1 this week




#1044 - KD made proposal re: this issue.  LH indicated that the new prose was
  not strong enough, and DH presented a response agreeable to the WG 
participants
  at this meeting.  Per this issue, it may be important to "highlight" key 
words
  in an accessible way to make them stand out, and to use a specific 
structural
(not presentational) markup for accessibility reasons.
ACTION - KD to reword original proposal slightly per DH's suggestions and send
  to list in one week.




#1058 - KD proposed a solution for this issue, noting that a "perfect" solution
  may not be possible.  RK indicated a "bad" example in the Section 2 
guidelines.
  It was felt to be important in the body of the document to show the full 
numbering
  scheme for each item.  KD did not implement the full numbering scheme yet 
to wait
  for group reaction.  KD's proposal met with general approval.
ACTION - KD to implement new numbering scheme and create table linking old 
numbers
  (under old numbering scheme and new numbers (under new numbering scheme) 
in one week.




#1144 - KD made a proposal to create Appendix A at end of the editor's 
verison of
SpecGL; this appendix is currently titled "publication workflow".
DH made a proposal to make this appendix a section in SpecGL (not an appendix);
this section would be titled "beyond conformance" and would come before the
conformance section in SpecGL.  A question was raised as to whether to 
change the
  title of SpecGL itself per this addition, and after some discussion it was
determined to leave the SpecGL title unchanged.  This new section is 
informative,
  and the possible scope of this new section was discussed.  In particular, 
would
there be a place in this section for addressing WAI CG accessibility concerns,
DI concerns, etc.)?  TB pointed out that the creation of such a new section
including accessibility interests was of interest to the WAI CG from the joint
  WAI-QA Boston face-to-face meeting of March 4.  Another aspect of this
  new section was whether to reformat the currently-titled "appendix" to remove
  such phrases as "what does it mean" and "why care", in order to make the 
resultant
  new section seem more "casual" than the rest of SpecGL, which contains 
requirements.
There was agreement on DH's proposal and the subsequent reformatting 
discussion
previous.
ACTION - KD to move the current "appendix" per DH's proposal and format the new
  section differently from the other SpecGL sections per the discussion 
previous
  in one week's time.





ACTION (GENERAL): KD to update issues document to reflect decisions on issues
  made at this meeting (per SpecGL discussions previous)



-----------------------------




MEETING ADJOURNED

Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 19:50:03 UTC