QA IG F2F -- 27 Feb 2006

<pcurran> Hello - I think I'm connected???

<dom> ScribeNick: dom

Scribe list: this morning: dom; olivier this pm; tim tomorrow am; patrick tomorrow pm

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html Using Zakim IRC Bot

Introductions around the table

Olivier: W3C Staff, working on open source tools

Snorre: Opera Software, managing Opera's QA department
... here to learn and see how Opera can contribute

Tim: from US NIST, particular interest in WCAG and similar specifications
... to see if addition QA can be applied to human evaluation

Patrick: from SUN, run the group developing the conformance TS for Java
... see how SUN can incorporate TS from W3C

Jacques: from Fujitsu software; involved in conformance testing for ebXML in OASIS
... as well as chair of the WS-I interoperability and testing group
... interested in exploring how to align OASIS' conformance and tools effort with W3C's
... particularly interested in joint work on test assertion

<karl> dom: part of W3C Staff, I used to run the QA Activity, not involved anymore, but still interested. In our mobile group

<karl> ... we are interested by test cases.

karl: W3C Staff, co-chair of the QA IG with Lynne Rosenthal from NIST

s/we are interesetd by test cases/we are looking at the creating a working group to build test suites in the mobile web space/

scribe: Conformance manager, so looking closely at QA in W3C
... I sent a list of potential topics that could be discussed during this meeting

<karl> http://www.w3.org/QA/2006/01/quality_assurance_interest_gro.html

Topics include Evangelization + W3C IG Notes, Curriculum for Web standards, Validator*S*, CHIPs and CUAP Notes, QA Findings, EARL update , Ongoing development of QA guidelines, Test Case Metadata, Glossary, WAI coordination with QA, Dummy Guide to Test Assertions

Karl: propose that we start with Test Case Metadata after planning the rest of the meeting
... this pm, Test Assertions and relation with OASIS (when Lynne can join on the phone)
... Also, Lynne was asking whether the IG should have a new co-chair, since she may not have enough time
... Other topics where Dom should be involved: the Glossary system and the QA Findings
... Tomorrow: CHIPS and CUAP (http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/ and http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap/)
... also, joint meeting with EARL (an RDF vocabulary to describe test results reports)
... they're working on a Guide for EARL on which they would like feedback
... Tim Bolland suggested an item on coordination with WAI
... also, it was suggested to look at creating a curriculum on web standards
... StÃ©phanie Troeth and Ed Bilodeau [?] (from Montreal) interested in that topic
... also, QA Weblog

Tim Bolland: what about QA activities outside of W3C?

-> http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/11/other-sdo-qa QA in other SdO

scribe: we should look at what has been done in other organizations similar to W3C

Patrick: if we have time, we may also want to look at tools and templates

Test Cases Metadata

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/test-metadata/ Test Metadata, W3C Working Group note

Karl: the document lists minimal needed information to describe test cases
... it was published kind of in hurry
... Dom suggested looking at a RDF or XML Schema implementation of these metadata

<karl> dom: when started on working on this document, maybe it could be used for tools, and maybe a XML Schema, RDF Schema for this document.

<karl> ... I wanted to see if it was interesting for the group

<karl> ... it's a kind of low hanging fruits

<karl> dom: kind of tools will be test repository, etc.

Karl: one of the goals could be that other WG don't have to re-invent it each time

Jacques: this looks like a high-level model for test cases
... to put that to use, there would have to be more support on the markup side

Dom: if we can start advertizing this schema and a few groups build up on it, there can be some momentum behind tools etc

Patrick: we have a schema for our test descriptions - much more complex (probably too much so)
... but we always have added data above this model
... so the schema would need to be extensible

Snorre: we would be interested in this in Opera
... we have plenty of test suites in Opera that we would like to release
... we would be interested in a W3C-kind of way
... so that others can take advantage of them

Karl: as Patrick mentioned, such a schema would have to be extensible
... publishing the metadata was not imposing anything, very flexible
... if we publish in one format, it may be more difficult to get it adopted by other format camps
... e.g. XML Schema vs RDF Schema vs Relax NG

Tim: maybe we could look back at the discussions that happened last year in the TP

-> http://www.w3.org/QA/2005/03/joint-test-suites.html Results of Technical Plenary session on Joint Test Suite

Patrick: if we publish one, we can always offer the possibility for someone else to publish it in another format
... also, if we provide tools based on this, I think it would be of great interest to people

Karl: maybe a good way to do that would be to find a WG that would want to use it as a basis for their testing work

Dom: I'm happy to try it with my group if and when the BP group starts developing test cases

Tim: would be better if we used 2 groups

Karl: would be good to have 2 volunteers to look at the potential interest in this

Dom: volunteering

-> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/qa-test/results Survey of testing practices in W3C groups

Dom: I think we should have something before we go ask working groups
... my goal would simply to have a reference schema that groups could use if they need it

<scribe> ACTION: Dom to propose an implementation of Test Metadata in RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: Patrick, Tim and Snorre to review Dom'simplementation of Test Metadata in RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action02]

Dom: if we decide to publish it, do we republish the metadata doc?

Olivier: would help both (the doc and the schema)

Patrick: also, in the process of defining the schema, we may have to revise some of the metadata

Karl: we only have to make clear that this one of the potential binding

Patrick: yes, we can also challenge others to provide another binding

Olivier: what kind of timeline can we envision?

Dom: I'm hoping to have something before mid-March
... so we could re-publish the note sometimes in April

W3C Glossary system

-> http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/ W3C Glossary

Karl: the glossary collects the vocabulary across W3C specifications

<karl> dom: (explaining the glossary) it has been started 3 years ago, it collects data from W3C specifications.

<karl> ... it's a system which is based on RDF.

<karl> Tim: Do you have the glossary of WCAG?

<karl> dom: not the one of the WCAG 2.0.

<karl> ... there's a new intern starting on this in May.

<karl> ... one of the goals will be to add translation of terms

<karl> ... so to move to a kind of dictionnary

<karl> ... which will be useful for translators.

<karl> ... Improvements of the code is one of the target.

<karl> ... A study of the relationship between terms, or variability of terms.

<karl> ... For example, variability of user agents.

<karl> ... And make the code Open source.

karl: in terms of QA, it helps minimize the variations of definitions between specifications

Patrick: to what extent are we encouraging people to consult this?

Dom: referenced from SpecGL and the Editors home page

-> http://www.w3.org/2003/Editors/ W3C Editors home page

Tim: would you be willing to add a non-Rec document (WCAG 2.0) if they wanted so?

Dom: sure, if that can helps
... usually add glossaries at REC-time since that means it is then stable

[break]

[reconvening]

CUAP and CHIPs

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap Common User Agent Problems

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/ Common HTTP Implementation Problems

Karl: work done a few years ago to highlight some common implementation issues in user agents and HTTP-based softwares
... Olivier and I discussed about it and thought about updating them
... one of the ideas was to merge them together
... another idea was to make them practical identification of problems as described in the the Web Architecture document

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/ Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One

Karl: Olivier and I want to work on this, spending each 1/2 day a week on this
... trying to get this published ASAP and moving forward with them

Patrick: sounds like a good idea; how do you collect the list of problems you address?

Karl: the 1st document published was CUAP, which was based on user experiences in the Team
... no strict logical processus to collect them
... Basing it on WebArch can help structure the document better

Patrick: my question was to know who identifies the problems; maybe that's something we could get the community involved in
... e.g. with a bugzilla type system

karl: the question is how to identify "bugs" given they are not products specific

patrick: but aren't you problem actually existing in implementations?

karl: the thing is that we have to stay vendor-neutral

<karl> dom: getting the community involved in reporting the common mistakes implementations would be good. Maybe a wiki, not a bugzilla.

karl: indeed, some people are really good at spotting issues in the community

<karl> olivier: I'm not sure that open feedback would help, because there is a LOT of problems

dom: we could use webarch as a framework and ask for specific issues on implementing this or that principle

olivier: but isn't this eating feedback for webarch?

karl: I think we need to make clear we don't want comments about webarch

olivier: separately, how do we include the existing CUAP and CHIPs in this?
... certainly, not of all them can be related to WebArch

karl: yeah, e.g. usability-related points
... should we keep a separate document about them?

[karl gives an example about how CUAP recommends allowing to implement user style sheets]

dom: I'm a bit concerned about merging the 2 documents
... at this time, they have a well-defined audience
... merging them would blur this

olivier: having one doc would give more freedom on re-designing
... but keeping the 2 docs separated would make it easier to keep the existing stuff
... the new CUAP could simply mention that it integrates webArch
... also, in terms of marketing, it's different to market "CUAP and CHIPs" and to market "practical web arch"

Dom: note that the TAG did official request from the community documents that help understanding/implementing web arch
... sounds like a fit

karl: what kind of timeline?

Olivier: we should try to get something ready to publish by 1st of May

Dom: Snorre, had you heard about CUAP wrt your involvment in Opera?

Snorre: no, not yet

Olivier: would be interested in feedback from you, if you can

<scribe> ACTION: Olivier and Karl to provide an updated version of CUAP and CHIPs - due by end of April [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action03]

Karl: we'll post it to the QA IG

[Snorre agrees to review]

QA Findings

Karl: another Dom's suggestion!

<karl> dom: Some of you may know, the TAG has published the Web Architecture document.

<karl> ... but beyond this document, they published TAG Findings.

<karl> ... There are short documents dealing with issues about architecture. The format is quite interesting and gathering the knowledge about one particular topic of Web architecture

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/findings Findings of the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG)

<karl> dom: i was wondering if it would be interesting to publish such documents for QA.

<karl> ... Dom giving an example from his WG.

<karl> ... in MWI, we are writing best practices, some of these practices are not testable. So, they are not normative.

<karl> ... You don't have to be testable to be normative, but your life will be much harder if your provide non testable normative requirements.

<karl> ... So it's a kind of bad idea, but still to have a document pointing all the discussion which have been done of this kind of topic would be good.

<karl> Patrick: How does it fit with QA Findings?

<karl> dom: to have something light which helps to design this kind of documents quickly.

<karl> Patrick: only one document with multiple entries?

<karl> dom: no, more a collection of individual documents.

<karl> Patrick: I see how it could be good. Maybe better title than a simple FAQ.

<karl> Tim: The finding will include the question, and the debate around it.

<karl> dom: The format of the Findings was pleasant.

olivier: I like the idea of quickly designing documents

<Tim> WCAG techniques/tests could also be a "finding"?

olivier: but in context of QA, we already have technical reports
... tips, the blog articles
... adding findings to this may not be a good idea
... Tips are targeted to Web designers
... Weblog is somewhat in the middle
... the findings would be more about conformance issues, I guess
... but we should think about having so much variety in our type of documents

Patrick: I think we should focus more on publishing something, rather than on format
... I think we should focus on creating the materials

<karl> dom: I'm not caring that much about the format, but more the content.

<karl> ... I will be fine to have them in the wiki.

olivier: one suggestion: what about prototyping on the wiki, and then publishing in the wiki
... any specific reason to market it as a finding?

karl: prototyping in the wiki is a good idea
... we did that for the test metadata, some sections of specGl

<olivier> (publishing it on the "weblog")

karl: the final format could be published in the weblog
... I also care more about the content than the format

tim: how do we determine what qualifies as a finding?

dom: my expecations was that findings would be based on discussions in www-qa
... the idea would be to have someone responsible for starting a wiki page when an interesting topic is raised on the ml
... or start a draft and asks feedback on it
... but I'm not married to the "finding" format
... mostly an attempt to get new publications done by this IG

olivier: FWIW, the weblog is mostly a publishing framework

karl: sounds a bit like a Month in QA

dom: maybe a bit deeper than the summaries that were done in the Month in QA

karl: but do you have any suggestion as to how to find someone to do the work?
... maybe having someone watching out for potential findings would help?
... steps could be: discussion in www-qa, pros and cons in the wiki, further discussion in www-qa

dom: so maybe our findings are already what we're doing in the wiki

patrick: the difference would be that wiki/blogs are more informal, while findings (or a note or whatever) would have more standing
... would give more authority to the content
... so prototyping in the wiki sounds good, but then needs a formal publication

<karl> http://esw.w3.org/topic/QA - QA wiki

patrick: so 1st: prototype in wiki; then finding an editor to gather more data, and then publication either as part of FAQ, or finding

Karl: what if we started with an existing wiki topic?

<Tim> If I find interesting topic in a WG discussion relating to multiple

Dom: I would be more interested to start from the topic I raised in www-qa

<Tim> WGS, should I post to qa list?

Tim, sure

Patrick: this relates to our recurrent topic on how as a group we get to produce deliverables
... I think this needs someone (e.g. the Chairs) to go back and look at what has happened and what can be drawn from this
... we should also look at seeting how we could get more contributions
... esp. as this is much lesser involvment as it used to be
... so more people could participate in e.g. giving 2 hours a month

Karl: this will fit well in our agenda for this pm

<scribe> ACTION: Dom to start a wiki page on testability/normativity [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action04]

Dom: will try to get that done before mid-march; will report on www-qa

QA Weblog

Karl: the QA home page used to have only small news
... after discussion with Olivier, we thought about developing a Web log for the QA home page
... this is officially owned by the QA IG, although the policies for writing in it aren't well defined yet
... we have already started to publish a few articles
... with open comments
... (but moderated)
... [quotes articles that were written in the past few weeks]
... this has been driven by either questions received by email (e.g. for Content Negotiation); or based on an article published elsewhere on which we want to react

<Tim> What is the process for moderation of submissions to weblog

Karl: (e.g. would want to react on Patrick's blog entry on specs and tests)
... it should be open to the QA IG
... anybody contributing to the QA IG can propose a topic

-> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/pcurran Patrick's blog

Patrick: so what's the role of this wrt the wiki or informal discussions in the mailing list?

Olivier: the way I see it is an extension of the news page
... we had short news items on the QA home page

Patrick: that seems like an article, not news
... so why not in the wiki? what's the difference?

karl: 1st, blogs are more and more used as a source of information that people find easier
... feeds help following the information
... (could also use feeds by category)
... it's also a way of communicating that can attract that we could not reach by a mailing list

Tim: what about the quality of submissions?
... what if there is mis-information or lower quality submissions?
... I wouldn't want the existing quality compromised by not as good submissions

Patrick: can we revise an existing entry?

Karl: yes; that did happen for the entry on ruby

-> http://www.w3.org/QA/2006/02/ruby_annotation_to_change_the.html Ruby Annotation Under The Sunlight

scribe: I revised it based on comments from the I18N guys

Olivier: one of the differences with the wiki is that don't you get an history of editing
... but you get an history of discussion

Patrick: so, it sounds like a hierarchy:
... casual remark sent in www-qa, prototyping in wiki, and possibly more formal publication in weblog, and even maybe a document/finding based on these

Olivier: also, if we see that in the end the weblog should only be news, so be it
... but in the meantime, it's a pretty good way to have a better interaction with the community

Tim: how is this marketed?

olivier: by word of mouth

karl: but we haven't marketed it yet

Patrick: indeed, even I hadn't heard about it!

karl: we didn't want to make big announcements
... first testing how the community would react
... but anyone should feel free to talk about it or advertize it
... e.g. if I leave a comment from w3c QA, I put a link back to the weblog

patrick: so if I want to link back to this, I should use the /QA/ URL?

karl: http://www.w3.org/QA/IG/ is about the IG itself
... the logistics/work page of the QA IG

tim: you'll work on it? didn't find it very usable when I was looking for our documents earlier

patrick: still not sure about the difference between /QA/ and /QA/IG/

<Snorre> q!

karl: /QA/IG/ is more about the practical organization of the IG (e.g. minutes, next teleconf, ...)
... weblog is more about general QA info

patrick: so one more administrative, the other more outreach-y
... one for us, the other for the outside world
... it used to be the case that all our documents used to be linked from our WG page

tim: I had trouble to find the documents we had produced

patrick: so the QA IG should link to the documents we produced as a WG

Dom: what are the publication policies?

karl: not defined yet, happy to get ideas on this

olivier: if we use the wiki, this can help a review process

dom: but doesn't it make too heavy to get something published?
... in my WG, we have a separate category for personal comments
... with people clearly identified (e.g. with headshots)

Patrick: I don't think we should publish personal opinions
... going through the wiki sounds like a good way forward

Dom: but this doesn't play well with being able to reply to a post in another weblog
... if it takes e.g. 2 weeks to get consensus on a post, it doesn't seem worth it

Tim: I'm still not sure what's the goal of the weblog is

karl: it is another way to interact with the community
... e.g. for people that don't subscribe to mailing lists because they're too noisy
... we actually get comments on our articles
... so people are interested enough to react on them
... My main worry with the blog is that it may actually reduce the participation to the mailing list
... we can try to bridge the 2 worlds by posting from one to the other from time to time

Dom: I guess I'm still not sure about what you're going to tell the IG about contributing

karl: if there is something that has been discussed richly enough in the mailing list, the weblog is a good venue to publish it

patrick: still not clear if we're encouraging people to comment or to contribute entries, or what
... nor if there is a review process

karl: my idea is that if we see a discussion worthwile to publish, we'll ask for contribution

dom: so what about the EBNF of the XML Spec on the www-qa?

karl: sounds like a good example

<scribe> ACTION: karl to see if bjoern is interested in preparing a blog entry on the EBNF discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action05]

[breaking for lunch until 1:30]

<karl> Hi lynne

<lynne> Hi Karl. I'm back - I took a break

<scribe> ScribeNick: Tim

EBNF

EBNF discussion

Dom: discussion of EBNF discrepancies among specs
... or inconsistencies (examples of problems)?
... taking existing ENBF adding XML namespaces plus errata
... to avoid further discrepancies - consistency

Patrick: is it our job to fix the problem - just note it?
... bug is with XML Core spec (before namespaces)
... QA implications of add-ons to specs (relationships between specs)

<dom> Bjoern's original message on the problems of the XML EBNF spec

<lynne> who is there: Dom, Karl, Patrick, Tim - anyone else

<dom> lynne, see the roll call at the top of http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html

Karl: post outcome of discussion on QA IG mailing list
... not our role to publish update of XML spec - XML Core's role?
... ask Bjoern to contact XML Core re: EBNF item

Test Assertion Guide

Jacques worked inside OASIS - two efforts - one in scope of EBXML,

scribe: markup of test assertions, other is that specs should be more

<karl> (olivier is leaving the room for another meeting)

testable, more guidance for writing test assertions

scribe: , guidelines needed for what should be in test assertions,
... simple but useful - educational/PR exercise

Karl: what is status of test assertion guide now?

<karl> (doug has left the room)

Jacques: rough draft now, could be reviewed by both OASIS and W3C
... on technical basis (needs to be public?)

Karl: how difficult is it to make document more public, so more
... reviewers could access it?

Lynne: good solution is to make OASIS document public
... see whether who would be interested in working on document,

<dom> QA Test FAQ

Lynne: this document could end up as FAQ for test assertions
... goal- come up with thoughts occurring to people when deriving

test assertions, as well as automatic generation of test assertions

Patrick: would like to be involved in this work

Lynne: important to list all the choices in this document

Jacques: benefit - get the spec more testable, so that others can
... take over and write test assertions, and also, test assertion

<karl> -> Oct 2001 - Dimitris Dimitriadis - Test Assertions Guidelines is mentionned - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2001Oct/0064.html

Jacques: writers can find gaps or holes in specs, and thus write better specs

Karl: How long to make the document more public?

Jacques: need to talk to OASIS legal people - IP issues?
... more difficult question may be status of final outcome

ACTION Jacques and Lynne: to find out about making the document public

<dom> W3C Liaisons (incl OASIS)

Lynne: description or summary needed of goal of making document public

<scribe> ACTION: Lynne to develop document summary (review with Jacques) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action06]

Organization of QAIG

Karl: group not easily identified, must be on qaig mailing list,
... not currently regular teleconferences
... concern about finding better way of organizing the QAIG
... to support QAIG objectives

Lynne: concern about lack of specific deliverables, and no regular
... teleconferences to provide continuity, so how to get QAIG engaged
... on topics, and how to move forward on topics, given limited
... time availability for QAIG
... someone with more time for QAIG might be better right now as cochair?

Karl: (to Lynne) could you still participate (as resource)?

Lynne: yes, but still limited amount of time to contribute to QAIG
... cochair should devote more time to QAIG?

Patrick: how much time is required for cochair of QAIG?

Lynne: hard to say, maybe two hours a week?

Patrick: can put in two hours a week

at least one W3C staff person is needed for the QAIG

Dom: people can be very active in QAIG without being cochairs

Lynne: supports Patrick as cochair, will step down as cochair?

Patrick: will accept cochair, so Lynne will resign cochair

<scribe> ACTION: Karl to ask W3C management about change of chairs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action07]

Karl: Lynne and Patrick: how should QAIG work be organized?

Patrick: regular teleconferences (at least among cochairs) needed

maybe every two weeks

ACTION Patrick and Karl; to arrange specific time for QAIG teleconfs

From group - thanks for a great job, Lynne!

Templates of QA Handbook and SpecGL

Karl: what is status of work?

Lynne: no more work done on conformance template

Karl: conformance template - needs work to finish

Patrick: do it, if it's close to finished. Templates are useful to
... other WGs because it saves them work

Karl: SpecGL is tool to write specs

<scribe> ACTION: Karl to finish conformance template [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action08]

<lofton> zakim call lofton

Karl: started to work on charter template with Ian Jacobs, along with
... checker, needed in W3C to write charter
... more work needed on this template (finish stylesheet issue?)

<scribe> ACTION: Karl to finish charter template by March 16 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action09]

Karl: third template is process template - ask Lofton to do?

Lofton: yes, in next six weeks

<scribe> ACTION: Lofton to finish process template in next six weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action10]

<dom> Process document template based on the QA Handbook

Karl: sent email about proposition of work - indexing QA Handbook

<dom> Karl's proposal to "tag" the QA Handbook

Karl: another way to access document different indexes depending on
... different categories - easy for WGs

<scribe> ACTION: Tim to index QA Handbook to answer specific questions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action11]

Tools

Karl: What kinds of tools would be useful?

Patrick: More tools produced is good for participation, maybe
... spec markup process, measuring coverage, maybe donate some
... documents describing coverage issues, no other specific suggestions
... tools for tests/test harnesses needed

Lynne: Would a tools library/resource library be useful?

Patrick: yes, definitely, for information sharing/reuse, maybe use
... wiki to invite input from other WGs for example

<karl>

<scribe> ACTION: Patrick to create section on wiki re: tools [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/27-qa-minutes.html#action12]

<karl>

Karl: Robin Berjon has asked for someone from QAIG to go to EXI WG and

<karl> Hi steph

<sniffles> salut karl :)

explain QA work since EXI is starting testing activities

Patrick: respond that if EXI reps are available Tuesday could be

<sniffles> (brb0

Patrick: meeting then, but no one from QAIG is available Thurs-Fri

<sniffles> re

<sniffles> karl? i'm trying to get holly to come here as well

<sniffles> ping

<sniffles> hey holly

<sniffles> :)

<holly> hey steph. :)

<sniffles> i think everyone's left ;)

<dom> we're back

<sniffles> hey dom!

<karl> cool holly and sniffles

<karl> :)

<holly> hi karl :)

<karl> olivier is trying to join again

<karl> we are waiting for the scribe,

<holly> where's the video :)

<karl> and another participants.

<sniffles> is Ed joining us on IRC ?

<karl> Heheh I have forgotten my webcam I could have broadcast indeed

<sniffles> or is he calling in ?

<sniffles> or if someone would like to open a skype conversation with me ... :)

<karl> I didn't have time to send him an email. We were without connections until yesterday.

<karl> :)

<sniffles> but i can't use skype-in

<sniffles> okay, i can try and catch up with him, but for two people who live in the same city moving in the same circles, i see him once every 1.5 years :P

<karl> olivier has skype but he doesn't have internet for now

<karl> the network is not very active

<sniffles> OKAY

<sniffles> oops

<sniffles> sorry caps

<sniffles> i guess irc will have to do ...

<karl> we might try by IRC. A little bit more difficult though but still doable

<sniffles> i am also in an open office :) you won't be able to hear me

<karl> I introduce the topic to the group here

<sniffles> okay

<sniffles> cool, thanks

QA Curriculum for Web Standards

<lynne> thanks.

Karl: possibility of resources from WASP re: teaching web standards

<karl> holly and sniffles if you want to jump, feel free. :)

WASP stands for Web Standards Project (representatives on IRC)

<sniffles> hello everyone

<sniffles> holly and I are both part of WaSP's education task force

Karl: talked with Ed Bilodeau at McGill Univ - might contribute

<sniffles> most of what we've done currently involve talking to universities and colleges, bringing out examples of what's been done

Karl: web standards materials to QAIG

<sniffles> currently the available public output has been in the forms of interviews

<sniffles> however, we've been looking at developing a kind of a curriculum framework

<sniffles> to help lecturers incorporate that into their teaching

<sniffles> it's very slow so far, and i think we'd like to see also if you have made any avenues

<sniffles> in which case, we should probably look at knowledge/experience sharing

<sniffles> :)

<sniffles> for reference: http://www.webstandards.org/act/campaign/edutf/

<karl> so we do not have done anything in this direction. BUT I had a discussion in the past with Ed Bilodeau who has done also teaching about Web standards

<karl> and he seemed to be interested in contributing or even giving some of his materials for a W3C IG note

<karl> I thought that was an interesting because both of you are in Montreal

<karl> and that would be easier to coordinate a project association QA IG and WASP

<sniffles> yes, indeed it would be

<karl> Would you think it would be a good idea?

<sniffles> yes, our notes on where we would like to head include estimating things like budgets, resources

<sniffles> to make it a useful framework for educators

what is the audience for the curriculum?

<sniffles> lecturers, college teachers

<sniffles> we know that sometimes lecturers are sold on standards-compliance (in some cases they are not)

<sniffles> but those who are find it difficult to push things through their department

<sniffles> and tend to face resistance

<sniffles> most web courses are in "design" faculties

<sniffles> and anything with TLAs come across as bit too technical ;)

<sniffles> so it's not just as simple as creating a framework, but perhaps also developing strategies for change

Olivier: what kind of "package" can be sent to lecturers for distribution
... to their faculty?

<sniffles> that hasn't yet been established

<sniffles> the goal for eduTF is to be international with this model

<sniffles> and for that we have to understand (and we're still gathering information) of how universities function around the world

Olivier: "package" could be only resources to full first course to
... adapt for their purposes

<sniffles> that's the idea, yes

Patrick: QAIG not experienced in eduation, but could provide materials

<sniffles> that would be most helpful :)

Patrick: for educators to collect

<sniffles> i think we need to strike a balance between

<sniffles> 1) what needs to be taught

<sniffles> 2) what can conceivably be taught

<holly> I was thinking aout a Why Teach Standards piece. direct it at students, faculty, institutions

<sniffles> that would be very good coming from the QA

<sniffles> team

Olivier: goals of task force is to understand how universities work
... around the world

<karl> (big laugh here)

<sniffles> what did i say? :D

Dom: need to be pragmatic?

<dom> sniffles, we were doing exegesis of your words above (re need vs can)

<sniffles> hehehe

<holly> I tend to believe universities around the world, work in quite the same way. Difficult to get change through.

<sniffles> we've seen similarities in that you either get web courses taught in design faculties or in computing

<sniffles> re need vs can: there's the simple factor of how many contact hours you expect a student to take per week :)

<holly> Difficult to convince. Issues regarding budget. Issues regarding faculty having time to learn standards approach.

<sniffles> yes, as most educators themselves are not up to date

<holly> Difficult to show importance of basics standards skills in the multimedia approach and also in the computer science development/programming approach.

<holly> not separate issue, needs to address design and development

<sniffles> and the preference for Flash sites ;)

<karl> olivier: qaig has little experience in education; but experience in being a round table

<bjoern> Nearby: "note from Prof Knuth", http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2005Sep/0052

Snorre: Resources at Opera to make available for this effort?

Karl: have some proposals for material, small group of people get

<holly> As a tandem, we are also seeing some Web Standards User groups forming at key Universities and Colleges to provide and advocate a method for change - WaSP Edu is providing interviews with these as we find out about them.

Karl: online to define agenda for working, schedule, etc.

Olivier: what kind of structure should this activity take?
... this is a coordination issue - who should lead?

Karl: creating a task force (involving another task force)?

<sniffles> *chuckle*

<sniffles> russian doll model? :)

<karl> (laughs)

Karl: Question for WASP - would WASP want to particpate on this

<sniffles> the core eduTF has four to six people

Karl: activity in the QAIG in an open way?

<sniffles> i say 4 to 6 because we're not always available

<sniffles> i think it would be good for us to join efforts

<holly> I bet at least 3 of us could be fairly active.

<karl> karl: Would this 4 to 6 persons can have regular IRC meetings at least, every 2 weeks.

<sniffles> i can, yes

<holly> i could also.

<karl> olivier: how many people at Opera on this?

<sniffles> the question from me is: where would QAIG like this to head ?

<sniffles> do we have similar goals, or are you planning to adopt the vision eduTF already established?

<karl> Snorre: Opera has 1 full time + future resources part time and then full time working on the "open the web" initiative

<sniffles> i'm sorry, i missed something - the opera resource for taking part in this ?

<karl> karl: as for heading, the QA IG is quite open

<karl> It's more a question of coordination, structure, and avenue for publishing

<karl> ... It could be published as a QA IG note (if it makes sense)

<sniffles> i think having the QA IG on side would be great for pushing it forward

<sniffles> but much more work to be done before that ;)

<holly> Agree. When the school staff and developers see that QA is on board, I think the message becomes much stronger.

<karl> olivier: I propose to push the requirements interview phase and then decide where to head from there.

Olivier: don't know what educators want, so get requirements first

<sniffles> we have access to a large circle of educators

<karl> Snorre: resources has internally for now, for the Open The Web initiative, we don't know yet how much we might be able to contribute to QA IG

<sniffles> so if we can develop a small set of questions that will be definitive

<sniffles> we can scatter this outwards in our avenues

<karl> agreed. :)

<karl> karl: next steps? what would it be?

<karl> having a first IRC meeting?

<karl> Scheduled ... when

<dom> [I have to go to another meeting; plans to be here tomorrow am if meeting is confirmed]

<sniffles> i think holly and i should raise the discussion with other eduTF members

<karl> Let's say that if ok, we could have an IRC meeting in 2 weeks from now

<sniffles> that sounds good

<holly> Two weeks from now, is that SXSW timing?

<karl> and then you could report about WASP decisions, and we can try to program the next move

<sniffles> hrm yes, if it's SXSW it'll be difficult to coordinate

<karl> SXSW: March 10-19

<sniffles> let's coordinate something post SXSW

<karl> do you prefer before or after?

<karl> post

<karl> ok :)

<sniffles> with any luck there will be additioinal material coming from the WaSP meet there

<karl> 21 March?

<sniffles> sure

<sniffles> timing might be difficult :)

<holly> sounds fine to me.

<karl> Have you seen the date of SXSW Interactive is 10-14

<karl> it gives one week

<holly> you could move the date up a bit for the meeting.

<karl> March 21??? is it ok?

<karl> final answer?

<karl> :D

<sniffles> it's fine with me :)

<karl> ok good set and minuted.

<karl> I think we will adjourn the meeting for today.

<sniffles> excellent

<sniffles> thanks everyone

<karl> :) thanks sniffles and holly

<holly> thanks Karl :)

<sniffles> thanks karl :)

- DRAFT -

QA IG F2F

27 Feb 2006

Attendees

Contents