[WG: Sakai QA] New Test Instances Page - please comment
plpeterson at ucdavis.edu
Fri Apr 24 16:32:39 PDT 2009
Tim Archer got a burst of energy, insight and brilliance and mocked up a new page for the New Test Instances Page<http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/confluence/x/bAE2Aw> (http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/confluence/x/bAE2Aw) on the QA Confluence page. I have modified this page to reflect the current status and I find this proposed solution very compelling, but i need to get additional input and insight from the people whohave and will be using this page.
Below find Tim's proposal which he said i could share with everyone. I would encourage you to take a look at the site, Tim's comments and then reply with your thoughts as well.
>From Tim's email.....
The reasons for this are as follows:
1. We want the information most likely to be wanted to be at the top or closer to the top of the page
2. We don't want enthusiastic contributors testing and finding bugs in previous versions that may well have been addressed in subsequent releases
3. We want finding a QA instance to be something that doesn't require a Doctorate to do :D
There is certainly some formatting that would need tiding up, just an idea at this stage.
Additional proposed/possible changes:
1. Move the Evaluation and demo listings to a separate page. This page is getting long enough as it is.
2. Enhance the consistency of the page by including the [specs] links for all instances.
a. Caveat: There is no point in having these specs pages if they are wildly out of date. I fully understand they are extra things that need updating, but the professionalism of the view we are showing the world is not helped when an instance can be running the latest version of the RC, yet the specs page still shows 2.4. So, IMO, we need to either make sure these pages are updated as well or delete the links.
3. Cut down the information on the main page. Using QA1-AU as an example, the average user doesn't care where the server is, or where the logs are, or, in most cases, the notes. I suggest that we move much of this information to the specs pages and rename them details pages. What is the minimum information that Joe Average tester (OK, we all know that testers are way above average;) ) needs to know? I suggest Name, OS/DB and Site (but URL would seem more common language to me) - we then have much shorter tables, with short sharp information.
Please understand that I am not trying to find fault with people, as I know everyone is busy and that busy is the new norm. I am merely trying to take a step back and not merely go with the status quo, but to improve.
I am happy to make the changes to the main page and move the information to the specs/details pages if the consensus is that my ideas have merit.
QA Director, Sakai Foundation
plpeterson at ucdavis.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sakai-qa