From c2820551215c564bae8aff5f9fb65d9e4b3b2526 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Sullivan Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:46:23 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] add main page --- index.html | 132 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 132 insertions(+) create mode 100644 index.html diff --git a/index.html b/index.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..29a4137 --- /dev/null +++ b/index.html @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ + + + +AT&T Goals for W3C Web Testing + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+slanted W3C logo +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +Cover page images (keys)
+

Goals for W3C Web Testing
Bryan Sullivan, AT&T

+
+ +
+

If we believe the "HTML5" hype
(and we do)

+ +
+ +
+

Defining the Important

+ +
+ +
+

Verifying that It Works

+ +
+ +
+

Verifying that It Works

+ +
+ +
+

Focusing on CoreMob 2012

+ +
+ +
+

2013 Web Testing Priorities

+ +
+ + + \ No newline at end of file From ed3cafc49b9e1416443492acf13e4ea2452f9684 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Sullivan Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:27:26 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Remove incremental class on slides --- 20130129-WebTesting.html | 262 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 131 insertions(+), 131 deletions(-) diff --git a/20130129-WebTesting.html b/20130129-WebTesting.html index 68f615b..e40679d 100644 --- a/20130129-WebTesting.html +++ b/20130129-WebTesting.html @@ -1,132 +1,132 @@ - - - -AT&T Goals for W3C Web Testing - - - - - - - - -
- -
-slanted W3C logo -
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Cover page images (keys)
-

Goals for W3C Web Testing
Bryan Sullivan, AT&T

-
- -
-

If we believe the "HTML5" hype
(and we do)

-
    -
  • We need to prepare for the developer and user onslaught
    • -
  • We need to avoid over-selling what it can do
    • -
  • We need to ensure specs have really been validated
    • -
  • We need to identify what's important to developers
    • -
  • We need a system that can inform developers about what works, in what browsers/devices, and let them revalidate it
    • -
-
- -
-

Defining the Important

-
    -
  • So far this is underway with CoreMob 2012, and 2013 is coming
    • -
  • Importance is usually a question of detailed priorities
    • -
  • Feature level priorities focus test development effort
    • -
  • Importance can also shift, and must be kept up-to-date
    • -
-
- -
-

Verifying that It Works

-
    -
  • We need a test framework that is: -
      -
    • Centralized, interoperable across specs, an ingrained part of the W3C process
      • -
    • Clonable (or at least privacy-enabling), to allow pre-launch device testing
      • -
    • Automated to the fullest extent possible
      • -
    • Data-focused, collecting/aggregating/exposing test results
      • -
    -
    • -
-
- -
-

Verifying that It Works

-
    -
  • We need test assets that are: -
      -
    • Semantically associable to features and development stage
      • -
    • Developed per feature priorities
      • -
    • Shepherded through consistent development processes and life-cycle
      • -
    -
    • -
  • In summary - -
-
- -
-

Focusing on CoreMob 2012

-
    -
  • What became clear as I researched a draft analysis of test coverage per CoreMob 2012 -
      -
    • W3C tests are all over the place
      • -
    • It's unclear what lifecycle stage tests are at
      • -
    • It's unclear what tests may be duplicated
      • -
    • It's unclear how test map to coverage of assertions/requirements
      • -
    • Dependency upon non-W3C tests are even less clear
      • -
    • There are a lot of specs with 0 tests
      • -
    -
    • -
-
- -
-

2013 Web Testing Priorities

-
    -
  • Shift focus to open-source test suites/frameworks
    • -
  • Focus initially upon Ringmark
    • -
  • Get cloned test frameworks running in-house
    • -
  • Identify CoreMob 2012 coverage & gaps
    • -
  • Participate actively in W3C Web Testing -
      -
    • Defining feature priorities thru CoreMob
      • -
    • Helping organize efforts in W3C
      • -
    • Taking on skill-matched tasks
      • -
    -
    • -
-
- - + + + +AT&T Goals for W3C Web Testing + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+slanted W3C logo +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +Cover page images (keys)
+

Goals for W3C Web Testing
Bryan Sullivan, AT&T

+
+ +
+

If we believe the "HTML5" hype
(and we do)

+
    +
  • We need to prepare for the developer and user onslaught
    • +
  • We need to avoid over-selling what it can do
    • +
  • We need to ensure specs have really been validated
    • +
  • We need to identify what's important to developers
    • +
  • We need a system that can inform developers about what works, in what browsers/devices, and let them revalidate it
    • +
+
+ +
+

Defining the Important

+
    +
  • So far this is underway with CoreMob 2012, and 2013 is coming
    • +
  • Importance is usually a question of detailed priorities
    • +
  • Feature level priorities focus test development effort
    • +
  • Importance can also shift, and must be kept up-to-date
    • +
+
+ +
+

Verifying that It Works

+
    +
  • We need a test framework that is: +
      +
    • Centralized, interoperable across specs, an ingrained part of the W3C process
      • +
    • Clonable (or at least privacy-enabling), to allow pre-launch device testing
      • +
    • Automated to the fullest extent possible
      • +
    • Data-focused, collecting/aggregating/exposing test results
      • +
    +
    • +
+
+ +
+

Verifying that It Works

+
    +
  • We need test assets that are: +
      +
    • Semantically associable to features and development stage
      • +
    • Developed per feature priorities
      • +
    • Shepherded through consistent development processes and life-cycle
      • +
    +
    • +
  • In summary + +
+
+ +
+

Focusing on CoreMob 2012

+
    +
  • What became clear as I researched a draft analysis of test coverage per CoreMob 2012 +
      +
    • W3C tests are all over the place
      • +
    • It's unclear what lifecycle stage tests are at
      • +
    • It's unclear what tests may be duplicated
      • +
    • It's unclear how test map to coverage of assertions/requirements
      • +
    • Dependency upon non-W3C tests are even less clear
      • +
    • There are a lot of specs with 0 tests
      • +
    +
    • +
+
+ +
+

2013 Web Testing Priorities

+
    +
  • Shift focus to open-source test suites/frameworks
    • +
  • Focus initially upon Ringmark
    • +
  • Get cloned test frameworks running in-house
    • +
  • Identify CoreMob 2012 coverage & gaps
    • +
  • Participate actively in W3C Web Testing +
      +
    • Defining feature priorities thru CoreMob
      • +
    • Helping organize efforts in W3C
      • +
    • Taking on skill-matched tasks
      • +
    +
    • +
+
+ + \ No newline at end of file