- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:59:04 -0500
- To: www-qa@w3.org
The material in 1.5. Understanding and using this document http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-ops/#understanding-and-using introduces a *lot* of notational machinery. Is it all really necessary? It reminds me of Phil Greenspun's discussion of the "book with user interface" phenomenon... [[ The first component of the tech book user interface can be found at the front of most books: 10 pages explaining which chapters are relevant and for whom (note that this would not be necessary if the authors were capable of writing an adequate table of contents). These 10 pages also usually introduce a whole raft of typographic conventions and icons. The second component of the user interface is icons strewn throughout a book. Instead of a blank line and "Note:" in front of a little aside, you have the big notepad icon (explained in the first 10 pages). ]] -- http://philip.greenspun.com/wtr/dead-trees/story.html Please rely on established notational conventions more and introduce new devices less. And regarding... Checkpoint 1.1. Commit to at least "QA level three". [Priority 1] What in the world does that mean? Please don't introduce a whole collection of secret codes into the W3C development process. I first had the "secret code" feeling when reviewing the changelog. This entry is clear enough: Removed Sec 1.3 (Goals of QA Development), revised 1.1, 1.2, 1.4. because "1.3" is elaborated, but these are inscruitable: Clarified fulfillment criteria of CP3.2. clean up discussion in CP5.1 Hmm... maybe it's not as bad as I thought... many of the entries do say what the checkpoint numbers mean... Clarified wording of CP3.2 (spec versioning/errata support in TM). and the changelog is not the highest editorial priority (though it is important). Please be sure that the numbers aren't used by themselves in any important context. e.g. in the status of this document section, I see See QAWG issue #18 and issue #71. Do your issues have names as well as numbers? If not, that's a bad sign. Issues without names lead to the secret code phenomenon... long "issue 71" threads that newcomers have little hope of penetrating. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 10:59:07 UTC