Certification ? Scalable or One Shot ?
  • 2004/12/30 19:32

  • Marco

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1256

  • Since: 2004/3/15

Should we consider to offer :
- ex: 3 ranks of certication (like hotels stars *,**,*** e.g. classification system),
- or only a binary certification (YES/NO) ?

cf "I agree that you just don't want all coders to quit of the QA is too strict and coems out as arrogant"

just to talk about !

Re: Certification ? Scalable or One Shot ?
  • 2004/12/30 19:36

  • Marco

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1256

  • Since: 2004/3/15

In Dave's roadmap are some responses !

- levels
- A (full certification): all mandatory and recommended standards met
- B (limited certification): all mandatory standards met
- C (restricted certification): not all mandatory standards met
- S (special certification): for handling special cases, such as temporary withdrawal of a module due to serious bugs or security exploits
- U (uncertified): not known which standards are met
- certifier (person or group performing certification)
- indicated in posted certification level, e.g. A1, A2, B3
- 1: QA team
- 2: qualified third party (recognized by QA team as qualified to perform certification)
- 3: other third party

are you all ok ?

Re: Certification ? Scalable or One Shot ?
  • 2005/1/17 21:14

  • Marco

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 1256

  • Since: 2004/3/15

copy paste of danielh2o's post inhttps://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29062&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=10


refer to ROADMAP:
General users maynot familiar with levels:A B C S U and then with certifier:1 2 3
I think "star levels" is much better for user imginations similar to Editor's mark at download.com.
Different "coloured star" or "icons-star" for certifier maybe better too since 1 2 3 showing a sequence or what...

Personally, I think "S" or "U" may have a negative feeling to the module, "No level" is better than that. And I suggest QA team should only start the cert-process after module owner approval (same as @brash), the "star" acts as a scheme/award. They spend much time on their own module, should have the chance to said 'NO' interest to join "star" award (as everyone, except themselve, is a 3rd party to judge)

I wonder if certifier 1 2 3 is a must or not (as foresee QA documents should guide all people to test it). Perhaps, Good point is it will give a sense of belongings and efforts appreciation to QA team/certifier.

PS: MarcoFr, your star ideas is not alone


My main experrtice is not related to computers but to Customer Satisfaction. Probably I can help on this issue.

I like the 5 star method. Though I would suggest that each issue be evaluated by itself according to the Module Experience Cycle

1. Startup Information
(Is the name and description enough to know what it does with out installing it?)

2. Instalation Process
(Does it work without any hack, any db trick or so?)

3. Configutation
(Does it start at once with out configuring categories, writing names, or so?)

4. Design
(Is it coded following the XOOPS Standards?)

5. User Interface
(Is it clear for the user how to use the module?)

6. Admin Interface
(Is it clear for the webmaster how to use the interface)

7. Compatibility
(Is it compatible with other modules)

8. Eficiency
(Is it fast and works as expected?)

9. Apparience
(Is it nice, looks good, integrates with your site transparently?)

10. Usefullness
(Does a job that no other module does?)

How do you like this model?



What do you think about this ????
come on, lets vote !!!


Who's Online

82 user(s) are online (50 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)

Members: 0

Guests: 82



Goal: $100.00
Due Date: May 31
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits