Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2009-05-11

Meeting called to order at 10:34 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack
Ian McIntosh
Heiko Ehrenberg
Peter Horwood
Carl Walker
Brian Erickson
Tim Pender
Adam Ley
Brad Van Treuren

Excused:
Patrick Au

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

5/04/2009 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 4th May:
  • One correction:
    • Change: "[Eric] It certainly help people get own through the layers."
      to: "[Eric] It'd certainly help people get down through the layers."

Eric moved to approve with the above correction, Brad seconded, no objections.

3. Review old action items

  • Adam proposed we cover the following at the next meeting:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • Establish whether TRST needs to be addressed as requirements in the ATCA specification if it is not going to be managed globally (All)
  • Adam review ATCA standard document for FRU's states
  • Patrick contact Cadence for EDA support person.
  • All to consider what data items are missing from Data Elements diagram
  • All: do we feel SJTAG is requiring a new test language to obtain the information needed for diagnostics or is STAPL/SVF sufficient?
    see also Gunnar's presentation, in particular the new information he'd be looking for in a test language
    (http://files.sjtag.org/Ericsson-Nov2006/STAPL-Ideas.pdf)
  • Carl W/Andrew: Set up conference call to organise review of Vol. 3 - Ongoing
  • Andrew: Make contact with VXI Consortium/Charles Greenberg. - Ongoing
  • Ian/Brad: Draft "straw man" Volume 4 for review - Ongoing
  • All: Review "Role of Languages" in White Paper Volume 4 - Ongoing
  • All: Consider structure/content of survey - Ongoing
  • Harrison: Virtual system exploiting Configuration/Tuning/Instrumentation and Root Cause Analysis/Failure Mode Analysis Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • Brad: Virtual system exploiting POST and BIST Use Cases. - Ongoing.
  • Ian: Virtual system exploiting Environmental Stress Test Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • Brad/Ian - Prepare draft survey for review by group. - Ongoing
  • All: Propose answer options for the questions shown as needing completion. - Ongoing
  • All: Assess which section each question should be placed into. - Ongoing
  • Ian/Brad: Construct new question(s) for row 21 based on Brad's previous graphic. - Ongoing.
  • Ian/Brad: Construct new question(s) on gateway devices (linkers, bridges, instrumentation gateways). - Ongoing.
  • Ian: Reformat questions through to row 34 - Complete

4. Discussion Topics

    1. 2009 Survey
      • [Ian] I haven't managed to compose any new questions on gateway devices; I take you're the same Brad?
      • [Brad] That's correct.
      • [Ian] In reformatting the questions into a web page, I did start some things on including graphics. Tha action was really on row 21, "Languages" which didn't really seem to make sense to me, as the graphic we mentioned was more aligned to row 35. (http://www.sjtag.org/survey/forms/form1.html)
      • [Brad] The idea was to show a graphic when you hover on a question, then build text around the graphic.
      • [Ian] What is on the form now is really just an experiment. We had text tooltips last year; I hadn't thought about using images before.
      • [Ian] As I was building up the web page there were a couple of questions I felt needed answered: Which questions are the ones that we should insist on being filled in? Is the wording and intent of each question clear? And lastly, Do we feel that we need to split the form into sections as we'd previously discussed?
      • [Ian] At the moment there's probably about three-quarters of the questions included, and it takes up maybe eight full screens in the browser. The concern raised by Patrick and I think also by Tim was that a large form would be off- putting.
      • [Peter] The advantage of all questions on one page is that one can scroll down and get a feeling for how many questions there will be, while multiple pages of questions may leave one feeling uneasy about how many more questions there may be coming and someone may stop in the middle of the survey.
      • [Ian] Good point. I felt that way about the iNEMI survey - although each page was quite short you didn't get a feel of how far you were through the whole process.
      • [Ian] Do we want to postpone decision on this until we have all the questions included in the form?
      • [Brad] I'd think that may be the best option just now.
      • {General agreement by the group}
      • [Brad] Ian, you'd suggested having the technical and managerial questions serially in the form. I guess if you did that then people can just skip the questions they don't want to answer.
      • [Heiko] Maybe if the questions are in logical groups then they could be divided using some kind of graphical border?
      • [Ian] Yes, easily. We had section dividers last year, but we were waiting to see if we needed to re-order the questions. Sections will probably suggest themselves once the "flow" is right.
      • [Brad] Do want to talk about the formatting of the answers for input to the database?
      • [Ian] OK. To simplify the database submissions, many of the check box and drop down lists will just input an index to the answers: 'a', 'b', 'c', etc.
      • [Ian] The problem we had last year was that we entered the full text of the answer strings and with things like check boxes, it made extracting the data for analysis quite tricky.
      • [Ian] The indexes have mostly been added alongside the answer options, mainly as a quick reference for myself.
      • [Ian] Should we include the indexes for answers, as a reference? And if so, should they be capitalized or lower case?
      • {General agreement to include lower case indexes for the answers as reference between form and database}
      • [Ian] Regarding the pop-up help windows for certain questions: These may obscure parts of the answer or question.
      • [Eric] It works OK for me.
      • [Heiko] You can move the mouse pointer around and the window moves with it, so you can still read the question or answers while displaying the pop-up window.
      • {Brian's connection was dropped at 10:54}
      • [Eric] You should maybe add something to the top of the form to tell people that these pop-ups will appear.
      • [Ian] Yes, I think that's needed.
      • [Brad] The focus priority seems to go to the answers so I don't think there's a problem with obscuring answers.
      • [Ian] Yes, for drop-downs, that's true, but I'm more worried about the check box type.
      • [Ian] For check box question/answers, we want the hover only to appear on the question, did I understand that correct?
      • [Eric, Brad] Yes
      • [Tim] There's an offset, so the answers aren't really obscured.
      • {Brian rejoined, 10:57}
      • [Peter] If you leave a larger border on the table boxes, then it give you somewhere to park the pointer so the hover doesn't show.
      • [Ian] Yes, that's easily done. One other thing I haven't tried is actually including the graphic in the question area. Image height might force the form to become longer though.
      • [Brad] Another option is to put a "help" button in the respective areas, clicking on which would display the pop-up window.
      • [Eric] It appears that the hover window behaves differently for questions 16 and 35. Is that intentional?
      • [Ian] Not really. I'll need to look at the source and determine the differences. On 16 the hover is tied only the text in the question, but on 35 the whole table element is linked to the hover.
      • [Eric] Maybe that's the answer. Does the behaviour of 16 help the usability?
      • [Brad] Yes, I think it does.
      • [Ian] I think it'd be possible to provide context sensitive help for individual answers.
      • [Eric] You don't want to over complicate things.
      • [Ian] True, but I'm thinking about 26 which is quite wordy. The answers are maybe difficult to read or differentiate.
      • [Brad] That's exactly what I was thinking.
      • [Ian] One other form of help we can use is just including some additional text, like in 18.
      • [Eric] Yes, that's fine if you just want to explain something simple.
      • [Heiko] Maybe we can send the answers the survey participant as part of the confirmation email once the survey has been submitted, that way printing is not needed and one still has a reference.
         
      • [Ian] Is continuing with classifying questions nugatory work at this point?
      • [Brad] No, it's probably that first level of granularity when it comes to rearranging the questions.
      • [Ian] Blocks 35 to 38: are those technical or managerial?
      • [Brad] They are definitely technical, in my book.
      • [Brad] The same for 40, 41, and 42; 43 is questionable, almost seems to be in both categories.
      • [Ian] 43 may need some more answers to it, too.
      • [Ian] 45 through 51 are really all "money" questions, so in the managerial section.
      • [Eric, Brad] Yes
      • [Ian] 53 seems to fall into the "both" category. In fact 54 through to 68 almost all seem to be relevant to both technical and managerial types.
      • [Brad] They all are related to business decisions, that's why I had them initially categorized as managerial.
      • [Tim] Managers may not know what their people are lacking.
      • [Eric] Well, there's a divide between managers who only know business and the technical managers I think were targetting here.
      • [Ian] OK, so they're primarily aimed at the managers, but there may be some technical interest too.
      • [Ian] Are there any other comments on the survey for now?
      • {none voiced}

 

    1. System Diagnostics (continuation)
      • Not discussed due to lack of time.

 

    1. Select new subject from Priority Objectives in 2008 Survey
      • Not discussed due to lack of time.

 

5. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for May 2009:
Monday May 18, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT - Heiko will be absent

June schedule to be set next week.

6. Any other business

None.

7. Review new action items

None.

8. Adjourn

Brian moved to adjourn at 11:30 AM EDT, seconded by Peter.

Thanks again to Heiko for additional notes.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh