|Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Parul Mathur||6/18/14 11:13 AM|
Hi community members,
The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding its
website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO).
1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your expectations met?
2. What does QMO do well?
3. What can QMO do better?
4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?
We got some feedback on the Community Building mailing list:
We'd love to have your feedback too!
Looking forward to hearing from you.
(Mozilla Community Member)
IRC nick pragmatic on #qa
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Parul Mathur||6/18/14 1:55 PM|
This is the feedback we have received so far on the Community Building
mailing list community...@mozilla.org
Jayakumar Sadhasivam <iamjayakumars at gmail.com>
Wed Jun 11 19:46:06 PDT 2014
As a volunteer I prefer, Event Notification and Better Event Calendar.
Jayakumar Sadhasivam (iamjayakumars)
Mozilla Representative India
iamjayakumars at gmail.com
Gabriela Montagu <gmontagu at gmail.com>
Fri Jun 13 15:50:54 PDT 2014
I totally agree with Jayakumar about showing an Events calendar on the
front page of QMO, instead of having to browse to
https://quality.mozilla.org/, then click Events and then Calendar to know
about the week's events. These should be added as soon as they are
scheduled so the community is able to know about them in advance.
In the Teams sites, it would be nice to see a photo of each member (or a
team's one with the names of each one as the Web QA Team has) so you can
know the faces of the people you are contributing with. Long ago I remember
there were photos but not now. I think Contributors would be more keen on
contributing if they could know them, even only in a photo.
I like the way each team describes their activities and the information
about how to help in each one is great. I think it would be good to show
the team member's email address, as in the Mobile Team site. This may help
contributors to email some of the members directly instead of signing up to
a mailing list, to obtain more personalized help about how to contribute.
Some people prefer a more person to person contact. I remember I contacted
some Mozilla people this way a long time ago and it was a very rich
I've just discovered the Docs site, I think it's AWESOME!!! Having so much
information in one site is great!!!
Parul, I hope you'll find this helpful. Any doubts or questions, please
don't hesitate contacting me!!!!
Responsible QA Mozilla Hispano
Jayakumar Sadhasivam <iamjayakumars at gmail.com>
Fri Jun 13 21:22:50 PDT 2014
- Most of the New and regular volunteer love to go with Testday rather
than WebQA, Bug Verification Day and other. Pin the "Next Testday with
Date(*Next Testday Jun13, 2014 - Firefox Desktop Beta 31*)" in Home
Page, attracts more user. Most of the time testday are not aware.
line not more details about the testday.
- Easy way to adding the events to the calendar(Google, Apple, Lighting
and others), rather than downloading.
- Showing the volunteer name or Badges for QA.
Jayakumar Sadhasivam (iamjayakumars)
Mozilla Representative India
iamjayakumars at gmail.com
Ashickur Rahman <ashickur.noor at gmail.com>
Fri Jun 13 21:35:06 PDT 2014
Jay's points are good. My suggestion,
- We can write a blog of how to start at QMO, for the new contributor.
And pin it on the home page.
Dedicated Linux Forum in Bangladesh <http://goo.gl/238Ck>
Mozilla Reps <http://reps.mozilla.org>, Mozilla Bangladesh
Aaron Train <atrain at mozilla.com>
Fri Jun 13 14:33:24 PDT 2014
I noticed that there is a feedback request for QMO posted on the
community-building mailing list.
There are many things wrong and bad with QMO. This email will largely
just list points that I feel are bad with QMO in no particular order.
There is far and few between any good on QMO. It’s been like this for
years because it hasn’t ever been treated as a higher tier important
mozilla based website. It feels like a neglected stepchild.
What is the purpose of QMO? Are we even addressing that purpose? If it’s
the entrance and welcoming spot for our community, then we are doing a
As I see it right now, QMO lacks any cohesion, core relevant data and is
essentially a test-day announcement site. It’s a site that non of us
like using because it based on a Wordpress platform. There is little
extensibility and room for improvement and extensibility as we’re at the
mercy of the platform.
When I visit QMO, front-and centre is ‘the latest news’ which is
essentially listing *future events* which have been primarily test-day
even notices. Off the bat, we should be providing the upcoming events
*first* and future event notices elsewhere.
The are no reference to One and Done, Moztrap nor Firefox OS on the
front-page. There is no call to help on the front-page.
The teams that are defined on QMO do not make sense. Why is there an
automation team button, but in it I see WebQA. Is there no automation in
Mobile QA only makes reference to Android and not Firefox OS. What
purpose do these team pages serve?
There is a confusing yet useless login on the top right which serves no
useful purpose. What is the login even for?
Whatever docs that are relevant should not live on QMO, they should be
on MDN. They are not searchable and undiscoverable if they live on QMO.
These are just some of the issues I have with QMO and have had for many
years with this site. I want it to be useful, I really do think it
deserves web developer attention and shouldn’t be left alone. It should
feel like the other Mozilla web properties.
‘How I Can Help Test” is reduced to a small link on the right side
amongst a cluster of other links.
The community tab just redundantly lists front-page events. What purpose
does the community tab serve?
I really do think that QMO needs to be trashed and completely re-done
based on a new framework that allows for extensibility based on ideas we
want to do with it. WordPress is too limiting. The idea of QMO needs to
be redefined and the more important bits of information need to be
Nit: The entire look and feel of QMO is using a Firefox 3.5 theme which
is from 2009.
Other: There is a broken careers button which has been broken for years
on the right side. Can we get that removed?
Other: We make no mention of our open QA meeting on Wednesdays, see
https://qa.ubuntu.com/ for inspiration on how they do it
Other: There is no mobile optimization whatsoever
Sr. QA Engineer
--- Original Message ---
*From:* Parul Mathur <de...@pragmatictester.com>
*Subject:* Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:13 AM PST
*To:* Dev-quality <mailto:dev-q...@lists.mozilla.org>
> dev-quality mailing list
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||AaronMT||6/18/14 2:16 PM|
I just want to call out (re-reading my post) that I didn't at all mean to demean any past or current efforts of working on QMO.
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Francesca Ciceri||6/19/14 9:41 AM|
thanks Parul for starting this discussion! I honestly think that QMO
could use some love :)
I'm pretty new as contributor - I've started a couple of months ago -
but I had to rely more on the wiki and MDN than QMO for documentation
Here I'm assuming that the target of QMO is a prospective contributor,
and that the main purpose of the site is to explain what the QA work
is and how it's structured for the different products in Mozilla, to
give some directions on how to start, to give pointers to more
advanced documentation, to promote the upcoming events.
I pretty much think this is the whole point behind QMO, but feel free
to correct me if it isn't (ie: if it's more of a team website for
internal use or something like that).
As said above, I think it should have:
- a section explaining what the qa work is and how is structured in
- clear directions on how to start, depending on your skills/interests
- pointers to more advanced documentation (on wiki, or MDN)
- promoting of upcoming events
> Are your expectations met?
For what I can see, QMO already *has* all this stuff: it's just IMVHO
not well organized, nor easy to browse if you don't know where to look
Both the design and the organization of the site seem slightly
confusing to me (but that can be just me!).
For instance: the home page shows the most recent posts, which are mainly
related to the events. And that's ok. But we should remember that the visitor
maybe doesn't have any prior knowledge about what (Mozilla) QA is, or how to start
contributing, so an header with a blurb on that could be useful.
Sort of a presentation, an "hello! this is the home of Mozilla QA:
the teams doing quality assurance on all Mozilla products. Take a look
at <link> our teams or check out <link> how you can help, or you can
check our <link> upcoming events. Want to learn more? Look our <link>
videos and <link> documentation."
This way, the user have a easy compass to navigate the site.
The page, visually, is a bit overwhelming: the most important tool for
navigate the site (the navigation tabs) is more or less crushed
by the teams list just below it.
Which, IMO is not that useful: it's not very likely that a new
contributor will know what "Automation" or "Services
QA" are, so there's no much point to a direct link from the
homepage. After all, if you want to go directly to the teams page you
can use the "Teams" tab in the navigation bar. Having both is redundant.
On a side and totally unrelated note, I find the teams icons adorable
especially the Mobile one: kudos to whoever created them! :)
Also: "The Home of Mozilla QA" and "Get Involved!" just above the teams
icons are a bit confusing in their use of colors (at first I thought
that the green "get involved" title was a link).
Others have already mentioned that, but the login box is confusing as
I think the events part is well mantained and structured. I like the
Video section (and I just discovered it!), and it could probably use some
love in terms of a better categorization of the video listed.
I like also the fact that the various teams inside the QA ecosystem are
listed, so that you can understand all the different parts of the work
that's going on.
And, finally, I think the Docs section - while probably in need of a
general review (for sometimes links seem to run in circles, and also
sometimes overlap wiki or mdn docs) and a better visual listing, is
As said, an overall well thought re-organization of the structure and
the presentation of the content would be great IMO.
An idea could be to identify tasks with a difficulty rating
in mind, and then organize all the site using that rating.
For instance: entry level contribution, intermediate, advanced, expert.
And for entry level choose some tasks, the related docs, the related
videos, the related events. And you can obviously do it in two ways:
- adding a visual marker for each difficulty, and maintain the current
main level structure of the site, so that - let's say - in the Events
section the bug triaging days have one star out of five, because
they're easier than the verification days. And the tasks associated
with the Automation team are tagged as advanced because the tools
used there involve some experience in coding and stuff.
- organize the site per-profile of contribution: having in mind both
the easy to difficult scale, and the coding vs non-coding
contributor profile. This, though, will work only if the site is used
for the sole purpose of entry point for contributors, and not for
other purposes (like showcase of what the teams are doing, or
internal references and docs, etc)
I don't think something is actually missing. As said above, I think it's
just a matter of re-organization. And a bit of proofreading for
consistency throughout the site.
I do realize that the site is the result of many people work and I'm
grateful for it, so please take this as constructive criticism: it
was written with that intention (and I was hopefully able to convey it)!
Hope this helps,
"Zombies don't kill: they recruit"
Braids, dementia summoner
(Zombie Assassin card, Odyssey set, Magic: The Gathering)
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Liz Henry||6/19/14 9:53 AM|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I agree! In fact I think we should remove a lot of what is on QMO and
simplify what's there, moving all documentation to MDN and the wiki.
I'd say we're going to do this kind of work within One and Done, and
we shouldn't try to duplicate it in QMO. In fact, I think that
treating QMO as a more or less static website makes the most sense ---
with the exception of blog posts and event announcements.
I also think we may do better to treat the "blog" differently than the
"events announcements/events calendar". Right now they are basically
the same thing, and that doesn't work well. The events plugin we're
using is buggy.
I also think the content we currently have under "community" should in
future become blog posts. Highlight contributors on the blog along
with other posts reporting on events that took place or anything else
I agree here too :) This is great, detailed feedback, Francesca, and
a really useful overview!
- - lizzard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Parul Mathur||6/19/14 12:47 PM|
There are probably a lot of people on this mailing list who are involved
in creating content on QMO: writing blog posts, notifying upcoming
events, uploading videos, updating docs, etc.
What do you think of the infrastructure that is in place for doing this?
Is there any room for improvement in this area?
For example, when you publish a blog post do you know how many people
have read it? Do you have an avenue for interacting with your readers?
When you notify an upcoming event, do you know how many people are
interesting in attending it? Do you have an easy way to upload photos or
a report about how the event went?
If you are soliciting community feedback, do you have a way to set up
surveys and analyze the results?
Do you want some other way to interact with community?
Mozilla Community Member
(IRC nick pragmatic on #qa)
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||rpappalardo||6/20/14 11:53 AM|
I like the idea of making one-and-done the front door for everyone
coming to the community. Wherever people find us, it would be great if
we could link them straight to one-and-done to get them directed into
pathways from the get go. So rather, trying to maintain various
portals, just have the one. I also think it's important for us to think
more about what people are looking for from us rather than the other way
around. I'll bet the majority of folks are looking to improve their
technical skills and get experience that is clear and recognizable. The
more people feel they can successfully accomplish that with us, the more
the word will get out and the more successful we'll be at keeping
community members engaged.
Cloud Services QA
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Marc Schifer||6/20/14 4:14 PM|
As others have said, It seems to be that the QMO landing page should be a simple and direct introduction to what QA at Mozilla is. A lot of people have no idea what QA is, much less how to do it. If I were starting from scratch myself, I'd probably start with short into paragraph immediately followed by an event calendar that not just lists QA events, but also our release schedule.
I'd also have a nice side bar / check list of introductory links to tutorials, guides to testing and how to write a proper bug. I'd also move the team link pages below the calendar with a short description of what product(s) each team handles. A prominent link to One and Done should probably be right under the calendar with a note like, "Can't wait to get started? Here's some things you can try right now!" Essentially the page should guide them right into participating ASAP without having a lot of clicks or hoops to jump through.
It would also be neat if we have someway to highlight a Contributor of the Month with a link to their Mozillians profile and a blurb about how they contributed to the project.
I also think we should try and keep the landing page as simple as possible, a large wall of text and links can be off putting or overwhelming for many people. Keeping the blog posts/news posts down to a short list of the most recent posts and maybe just show the first few lines with links to expand/or take you to the full article
One thing obviously missing is links to Nightly/Aurora/Beta downloads. These should be very obvious on the page somewhere.
And yes, where is the FxOS team?
Team pages should also have links to highlight any specific events/news/blog posts targeting their projects as well detailed instructions (Wiki links?) on how to participate in their work. If we had ways to link directly to the One and Done tasks already filtered for that project, that would help guide people easily into the work they are interested in.
TL;DR - Make the landing page a quick entry into the QA world at Mozilla and save the details for deeper pages.
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Anthony Hughes||6/20/14 4:16 PM|
Thank you very much for starting this discussion. I've not yet had time
to fully collect my thoughts on this but I'll try to post my feedback by
early next week.
Sorry for the delay.
> 1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your expectations
> 2. What does QMO do well?
> 3. What can QMO do better?
> 4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?
> We got some feedback on the Community Building mailing list:
> _______________________________________________Anthony Hughes
Senior Test Engineer
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Tony Chung||6/20/14 5:54 PM|
>Okay, you asked for it! I just put up a draft of the team and what we do here. Open for feedback!
> Cloud Services QA
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Tony Chung||6/20/14 5:54 PM|
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Anthony Hughes||6/23/14 2:44 PM|
> 1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your expectations met?I expect QMO to be an entry way to documentation, events, and interactions which help newcomers become involved. I also expect it to be a place where existing community members can assist one another. For the most part these expectations are not fully met.
I'm not sure I can think of anything that QMO does particularly well. There are certainly things it's adequate for (like documentation) but I wouldn't go as far to say it's currently well suited for anything.
There are too many account levels. Any vouched Mozillian should be able to add/edit content. User submitted content should be on the front page, not buried under a separate tab. Any Mozillian (vouched or not) should be allowed to interact socially.
There's a lot missing from QMO currently. QMO is basically a one-way street. There is no way for contributors to interact with each other. We should find ways to integrate many of our tools into QMO to lower the barriers to entry (IRC, Bugzilla, etc).
In a nutshell, I think our currently implementation of QMO as a documentation repository and event calendar is quite limiting. It should be re-envisioned as a platform for QA collaboration and education.
----- Original Message -----
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Stephen Donner||6/23/14 3:22 PM|
Thanks for kick-starting this discussion back up again, Parul.
1. When I'd go to a site like QMO, I'd expect to see information, at a
high-level about the QA/testing efforts and needs, at Mozilla, and
the teams (comprised of paid/non-paid community) responsible for
those particular areas. I'd also expect recent news (blogs, feeds)
about testing needs, accomplishments, events, as well new projects
from development which might need testing.
2. I think it performs fairly well as a highly-visible blog, and keeps
folks updated on the latest goings-ons with testdays, in-person
events/meetups, and -- once you get to the respective team pages --
for the most part introduces interested community members to the
teams and some of what we do.
3. We've tried in various ways, from its genesis, to be a "portal" to
all things QA at Mozilla (including the forums, which ended up
largely being used for product-support requests or highly spammed,
even with tending and anti-spam measures), and I think we can do a
whole lot better at: getting interested folk closer to the various
teams, making the site more inviting and encouraging more/easier
on-ramping, while making it somehow more dynamic/interactive.
Sadly, right now the Media page (https://quality.mozilla.org/media/)
has missing/broken content , but it'd be great to update and fill
that out a bit. I think we also tried to go for it at one point,
too, but an up-to-date (and even listing "QA alumni") page listing
community members and their contributions/areas of focus would be
great, too (I know we have a bit of that in Mozillians + One and
Done with profiles, so we'd have to figure out the fit).
4. I personally would love to see a real-time chat widget of #qa (as
would satdav, I know), somewhere very prominent, but I believe there
are still security and/or technical concerns/challenges with doing
so (at least with WordPress).
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Edwin Wong||6/23/14 8:10 PM|
I like to think about the issue with:
* what are the outcomes that the quality organization is looking for with QMO?
* who’s my reader?
* what do I want to communicate to the reader and what action should happen?
I’d like this to be a place for contributors to share about things we’re learning, about why we are passionate about Mozilla products and community. I’d like it to be a simple and clear way for someone to get involved for short or deeper levels of contribution.
QMO is for:
* those interested in getting involved
* those already in QA wanting to learn and grow around open source testing tools and patterns
* those who want to know more about QA’s purpose
I think we just need to make it easier to publish content. Lower any barriers for the community to write articles or stories. Ultimately, it QMO is just an extension of all the amazing things that are happening when you build user first software.
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Edwin Wong||6/23/14 8:10 PM|
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Clint Talbert||6/24/14 5:38 PM|
So, QMO came about because we needed a portal. We had no unified
documentation solution, calendaring solution, blog, announcement
service, or task distribution service. QMO aimed to solve all those
things. Like most all-in-one solutions, it did so with varying degrees
of success in each area.
Nowadays, QMO excels at being a very visible web property and blog. It
is our best avenue to reach a large audience and is useful at being a
blog and event announcer.
Mozilla has standardized its documentation solution onto MDN. All the
QMO docs should move to MDN and the QMO versions should be removed. MDN
is well-indexed by google, has a staff of technical writers to help
maintain it, and is documentation central for the entire project.
I agree with Francesca's detailed post that most of QMO's problems are
really around content organization. I think the team pages are useful,
but only as static pages. And those static pages should be subordinate
to the blog content.
The content creation should be easy and open to all active and core
contributors, but subject to review for voice, style, and
applicability--this is QA's channel and QA's voice.
The calendar piece is nice, the feed of upcoming events is useful, but I
hear there is a lot of grumbling and bugs about it. I'd rather we use an
outside service (i.e. google's) than try to fix this ourselves. I also
like the idea of including all the release schedules into the calendar too.
The media tab just seems to contain broken links, and should be
eliminated. I don't think we need a video archive for anything anyway.
If we do, we should look into hosting that on Mozilla's air mozilla
service which is optimized for such things.
So in short, let's focus on what QMO does well, and use standard Mozilla
tools for everything else. Because nowadays, there are standard mozilla
tools for many of the things that QMO once sought to do.
I think we should organize our QMO content around it being a blog, an
event announcer/promoter, a connector to one and done, and a location
for team introduction pages -- in that priority order (highest to lowest).
That's my two cents,
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Geo Mealer||6/25/14 5:34 PM|
We've had a number of discussions on this over the years. Here are notes from a couple back in 2012:
March 15, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/QMO-Evolution
July 17, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/qmo-redesign
Obviously these are pretty out of date (for example, I'm stumping for a QMO-based web board on them to use instead of dev-quality!) but there are some good thoughts. Others may still have links to other discussions/notes from back then. We certainly talked about QMO a lot.
Re: thoughts, this repeats a bit of what Parul and I discussed in person, but echoing here.
I think a lot of thoughts in this thread are bang on re: what QMO is good at, bad at, how it could be rearranged, etc. Most are in line with each other, and I agree with a large number of them.
For all my opinions of the same types of things, though, what I don't really have a sense of right now is how valuable QMO is. It's good at some stuff, but is it important stuff? Is it the *most* important stuff? Without knowing the value of the site, it's hard to prioritize giving it attention. I suspect that might be why it's fallen by the wayside a bit in general.
So I think we should separate the concepts of purpose vs. execution:
First, we need a list of the N most important purposes for QMO to serve. This should be purely objective, not based on current QMO or anything. Just, what should our website do within the next few months? Aggregate blogs? Educate testers about testing? Introduce people to our communication systems? Play Tetris? (spoilers, probably not Tetris). It won't be everything it could do, maybe just the top 5 or 10 that we can agree are the most important things we need.
Second, we should execute a site that serves those N purposes in a completely focused manner. We should design review against the listed purposes, come to an agreement that the proposed design executes those purposes ideally, then build that.
And if part of the design is not directly serving one of the purposes we've explicitly decided we're tackling, it shouldn't go into the site. Otherwise we might collect features that are "easy" or "neat" but maybe not important. Any time spent on unimportant stuff--both implementing and for our audience--is time not spent on something we care more about.
If, given that design, it turns out we can reuse current code, or want to keep WordPress, great. Maybe once we add in resourcing requirements re: who/how much time it takes to maintain we end up having to tweak the design for more reuse. But ultimately every decision needs to focus on those purposes.
That gets us towards a fully intentional design, which we can more clearly judge for "is it or isn't it valuable?"
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Vuyisile Ndlovu||6/26/14 2:22 AM|
I'm cross posting my feedback from the Community Building team mailing list
in case it was missed.
My comments inline:
1. What is the primary purpose of QMO? Does the community see it as a place
where they will be welcomed into the QA team's activities and find out more
I can attest to the usefulness of QMO. When I first started at
Mozilla, QMO was the first site I
was linked to and it had all the necessary info on how to get involved
and how to contact the relevant QA team. I've only worked with Web QA
and so my comments are based on WebQA related pages on QMO.
The project pages have very clear and easy to follow instructions on
how to get started on manual or automated testing, with links to
project specific pages and github repos. Going through the entire text
of requirements, might be a bit of a bore, especially for a new
contributor who is just starting out in QA.
I believe QMO strives to be a one stop resource for new contributors,
giving them info on the different projects that they can contribute
to, how to get set up and how they can contact the respective QA
teams. I joined QA this way, I saw the site, looked up the webQA team
page and I was good to start.
> 2. What is the purpose of the team pages? Does the community see them as
a way to find out more about each team and initiate contact with team
members to see how they can get involved?
On the WebQA team page, there's a link to the webqa irc channel and
mailing list.Everytime we receive a "request to contribute" email, its
usually after the person has gone through the team pages. So, I think
that team pages are important and should always have up to date info
about how the teams can be contacted. This should be noted concerning
links to IRC chat rooms: IRC may be new to some and they may find it
challenging to set up, so I think its always best to use a link to a
web based irc service like mibbit.
> 3. Should the "Docs" section be migrated to MDN or does it properly
belong to QMO?
Docs should definitely be moved. Only the necessary documents should
be left over on QMO. In my experience, there were many times when I
read the docs, went into a redirection loop and ended up giving up. In
my opinion, only documents that will help the contributor get started
as easily as possible should remain. For example
The document is short, does not have many links and is easy to follow.
So documents regarding test case creation, bug writing guidelines,
security testing, checks vs tests etc should all be moved to MDN.
Only docs that give information on how the potential contributor can
start should be left over.
> 4. Should the "Join Mozilla" link on QMO front page go to a listing of
job openings in the QA team?
To a new contributor, the purpose of the link might not be very clear.
It may give the impression that only mozilla staff can contribute to
the project. If I was a potential contributor who had just read
through the site and clicked on that link, I'd think that only staff
can contribute and that's not good. the link needs to be either
removed or rephrased e.g "Work for mozilla" or "Mozilla jobs",
"careers at mozilla"... or something along those lines.
While I understand that QMO is specifically targetted at QA
contributors, I think there should be a link to mozilla.org/contribute
somewhere. My thinking behind this is that we're trying to get as many
contributors onboarded as possible, so if QA doesn't interest a
particular person, we can at least show them other opportunities at
mozilla that are open to them.
> 5. What purpose does the "Community" tab serve? What would the community
like to see on this page?
My understanding of the community tab is that its meant to be a place
where individual contributors who have made a huge impact,
contributors who have helped push the QA objectives forward can get
recognition. Recognition is very Important,especially to volunteer
contributors who want to be appreciated for their work and who want to
feel that their contributions matter. To that end, I think it would be
a good idea to add contributor spotlight and keep it up to date with
information about contributions made by community testers.
An example of how this can be done can be seen at the Reps site:
If we as the QA team are serious about growing the QA contributor
base, we need better engagement with the community both online and
offine. Reports from QA events can be posted in the community tab and
this could include talks by QA engineers at universities, bug days,
training days etc. I'd like to see more engagement woth the
communitity here in this section.
This is a little off topic but I'd like to see the Mozilla Reps QA
SIG coming to life. The QA special interest group will task itself
with organising QA events, recruiting and mentoring contributors and
pictures, reports and blogs from such activities could go into the
> 6. Does the community see the following areas as having definite room for
> * The entire look and feel of QMO
Like Aaron mentioned, the login feature is deprecated and should be
removed. It creates confusion because new contibutors think that they
*must* have an account on QMO in order to contribute,often leads to
them trying to sign up, failing to do so and then asking in the
mailing list/irc how they can create an account; which is something
that just takes them away from what they are supposed to be doing:
I also feel that this is functionality we don't need.
> * Viewing the site on mobile screens
I use a mobile device as my primary device to connect to the Internet
and my experience with QMO on mobile has never been good so yes I
think the site needs to have a mobile friendly look.
In God we trust, in everything else, we test....and test again!
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Robert Kaiser||6/26/14 3:23 PM|
Parul Mathur schrieb:
> 3. What can QMO do better?I think the integration or linking between QMO and One and Done should
be better, for example, if a volunteer should interact with others on
both sites, they should at least use the same login (which could be
solved by QMO moving to Persona) and the user profiles should be
|QA and MozReps||Clint Talbert||7/1/14 5:02 PM|
I'm intrigued by one of the things you mentioned in your post on QMO, so
I'm starting a new thread about that specifically. You mentioned that
you're interested in getting the MozRep QA Special Interest Group (SIG)
started up. Can you say more about that group, and what you imagine it
will do and achieve? I'd like to know how we can best help you. I'll
quote that part of your message below.
Thanks for responding to the QMO thread too, by the way.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
|Re: QA and MozReps||Vuyisile Ndlovu||7/6/14 7:44 PM|
My apologies for responding to this late.
The MozRep QA SIG is intended to be a program that empowers Reps with
tools/resources that they'd use to recruit more volunteers into QA.
Mozilla has great training for reps with regard to general community
building but I have strong reason to believe that QA is always
overlooked (or not given enough attention whenever we talk about
Members of the QA SIG would make it their responsibility as Reps to
focus their community building/recruitment efforts towards QA.
There's a wiki page that describes the goals of said group here:
I'll just summarise some of the points raised in that page: QA SIG duty:
1. Being online on IRC, ready to answer questions that new ones may
have concerning, setting up environments and getting started etc.
2. Responding to contribute requests in the mailing list.
3. Improve/localise QA Documentation
4. Host/facilitate testing themed events at schools/universities/tech
hubs to encourage contribution to QA efforts
5. Leverage and extend our reach internationally by increasing QA
presence in emerging markets such as Africa, Cuba, South America and
South East Asia.
I'd really like to see this group coming to life. Concerning how best
you can help me, I'd like to know if this is something members of the
QA team would be willing to put aside some of their time towards. For
instance, if this group were to become active, we'd start to see lots
of new contributors and these would need to be mentored, trained and
assisted in any way.
Secondly, there'll be need for documentation, explaining how team QA
goes about its job in testing the different applications made by
mozilla, how Reps should talk about QA, what QA is and what it's not
etc. For example, I've seen excellent slides
and a presentation by David Burns
.Documentation like this would go a long way in providing information
that the reps could use in their communities.
These are my thoughts
|Re: QA and MozReps||Marcia Knous||7/8/14 11:33 AM|
Hello Vuyisile - Thanks for your thoughts. We have had previous
discussions with some Reps about the SIG. In some areas it has been
difficult to get enough interest to have someone dedicated in this
role. I spent some time at the last Reps Council meeting trying to get
some interest in having people help us with events in their area, for
We already have a few people who I believe are functioning in this type
role who are not official Reps - Gabriela Montagu from Mozilla Hispano
is one person that comes to mind. So I don't believe someone has to
necessarily be a Rep to function in this type of role - but if Reps want
to help facilitate recruiting new volunteers and leading QA efforts in
their regional areas this would be great.
Also, I am not sure if you are aware but the recent "beta" MozCamp in
India was about going to a different model of community building - one
in which there would be more a "train the trainers" curriculum. There
are future "MozCamps" planned, and it is in my court to try to put
together a curriculum that would help empower those in regional areas to
lead QA efforts on their own (Testing events, Gatherings, Moz Coffees,
etc). So there are already some efforts underway to try to get some
better documentation for the community.
I am not sure what time zone you are in, but feel free to join the QA
Champions meeting this Friday - you can definitely share more of your
thoughts at the meeting if you like and we can talk about this more -
https://etherpad.mozilla.org/community-champions-20140711. The Champions
has point people from all the various parts of QA - Desktop, Web QA, FX
OS, FF for Android - and the contribution paths and entry points are all
a bit different depending on the functional area.
> Vuyisile Ndlovu <mailto:terra...@gmail.com>
> July 6, 2014 at 10:44 PM
> Clint Talbert <mailto:ctal...@mozilla.com>
> July 1, 2014 at 8:02 PM
> Hi Vuyisile,
> Thanks for responding to the QMO thread too, by the way.
> _______________________________________________> Vuyisile Ndlovu <mailto:terra...@gmail.com>
> June 26, 2014 at 5:22 AM
> If we as the QA team are serious about growing the QA contributor
>>> 3. What can QMO do better?
>>> 4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?> Geo Mealer <mailto:gme...@mozilla.com>
> June 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM
> Parul Mathur <mailto:de...@pragmatictester.com>
> June 18, 2014 at 2:13 PM
> Hi community members,
> 3. What can QMO do better?
|Re: QA and MozReps||Vuyisile Ndlovu||7/10/14 12:14 PM|
That's great news, I wasn't aware that the Mozcamp BETA would be
changed to something like this. Its unfortunate that the Reps don't
seem interested in this, as they have the skills to build communities,
but as Gabriela's example shows, one doesn't need to be a rep to grow
I'm currently unable to attend meetings via vidyo...is there a way I
can dial in instead? If not i'll keep the wiki page bookmarked and
I'll go over the meeting notes whenever the Champions meet. I'd love
to hear what ideas everyone else has and how I can use those in my
I live in Zimbabwe.
|Re: QA and MozReps||Clint Talbert||7/15/14 12:37 PM|
I'm not entirely certain how it would work from Zimbabwe, but I have
been able to use skype to dial into our calls from other international
Here's how that worked:
And then the conference room number for the specific meeting. Every
vidyo room has a conference number associated with it - to figure out
what it is prepend 9 to whatever "number" you see in vidyo associated
with the room. That will be something that the person organizing the
meeting will have to advertise on their meeting invitation.
|Re: QA and MozReps||Vuyisile Ndlovu||7/15/14 12:49 PM|
Thanks for the update Clint. This info is really helpfull. I'll do my
best to attend the next meeting
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Parul Mathur||7/16/14 1:34 PM|
I would like to share feedback from Craig Cook, the person who is
responsible for supporting QMO's infrastructure.
On 6/20/14 2:33 PM, Parul Mathur wrote:
> Hi Craig,
> The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding its
> website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO). As the person responsible for
> maintaining its infrastructure, I would be interested in hearing your
> thoughts on where you see room for improvement.
> 1. Going back all the way since you first started with QMO, what have
> been your biggest headaches with maintaining QMO's infrastructure? What
> about software security?
QMO is running on WordPress, an open source, PHP-based blogging
platform. It's very popular and very good at blogging, but it isn't a
full-featured, robust CMS for managing non-blog content (I'm defining
'blog' as an ongoing series of regular updates, published chronologically).
WordPress does support simple static pages (each a standalone, non-dated
page as opposed to a dated blog post) so we used those static pages for
the QA docs, but it's not really an ideal system. Organizing and
maintaining a large number of hierarchical pages in WP is kind of a
pain. That simply isn't what WP was designed for.
There were a number of functional requirements that WP doesn't provide
out of the box, so we turned to third party plugins. For example, WP
doesn't offer any kind of event management, so we're using a plugin
called The Events Calendar. WP can't syndicate content from external
websites, so we're using a plugin called FeedWordPress to fetch RSS
feeds and generate the Community page. We're using a plugin to generate
the breadcrumbs on doc pages, another plugin to display recently updated
docs in the sidebar, and so on. All things people wanted the site to do
but that WP doesn't provide without extra code.
QMO currently has 15 active plugins, though that number was even higher
not so long ago. For a while QMO was using BuddyPress, a very elaborate
plugin that turns a WordPress blog into a sort of social networking
site. It's basically a platform on top of a platform, but it was really
complicated and hard to use and prone to spam. In the end we barely used
any of the functionality BuddyPress promised and finally just removed
it, which made QMO much easier to maintain. Even then, keeping a large
number of plugins up to date can be tedious.
We deliberately didn't automate plugin updates because BuddyPress was so
fragile that we needed to test every new update to make sure it wouldn't
break the entire site. Even without BuddyPress, we're still not
automating plugin updates and tend to fall behind quickly. We're also
stuck on a very outdated copy of The Events Calendar because the plugin
authors completely changed the way it worked some time ago and we simply
haven't had time or resources to reengineer parts of the theme to work
with the newer version.
WordPress plugins are usually authored by individual volunteers, so code
quality varies widely. Mozilla's security policies set a high standard
for any third party software installed on Mozilla systems that could
potentially compromise the server or user privacy. Plugins need to
undergo a security review and they don't always pass, meaning in some
cases we have to find alternatives and/or work with the plugin
developers to patch the vulnerabilities.
> 2. What is the thinking behind the Community page in its current form?
The original intent was to create a "QA Planet" that would syndicate
blogs of QA team members and contributors. Since then I'm not sure the
community has found value in it, so it may not be worth maintaining it.
> 3. QMO is currently powered by Wordpress. Is there any other team blog
> in Mozilla that is powered by Wordpress? What would be the pros and cons
> of having a Wordpress-powered team website?
All of blog.mozilla.org is one multisite installation of WordPress and
many teams have their own blogs there. Otherwise the most prominent
instance of WordPress I know of is hacks.mozilla.org. Mitchell's blog at
blog.lizardwrangler.com and Brendan's blog at brendaneich.com are also
running on WordPress but they're more straightforward blogs without many
bells and whistles.
The upside of WordPress is that it's a hugely popular open-source
project, under constant development, and with a very active community.
It is first and foremost a blogging platform and that's what it's best
at. Many people try to bend WordPress into a more full-featured CMS for
non-blog content and, in my experience, the further away you get from a
traditional blog the more problematic WordPress becomes.
If QMO is going to move toward a more traditional blog, then it makes
sense to stay on WordPress rather than switch to some other blog
platform that may be less mature or feature-rich than WP. If QMO is
going to become less of a blog and more of a static site without the
need for regular chronological updates, then it might be better as a
standalone Django site. If it's going to be a wiki, then it should just
be a wiki.
If it's going to be a combination of everything (bespoke static site +
blog + wiki) then it's a case of finding some way to integrate several
different platforms as seamlessly as possible, which can be done with
proper planning (though an integrated wiki sounds like trouble).
Obviously it all depends on what sort of content you intend to host and
how you need to manage it.
> 4. Are there any Mozilla team blogs that are powered by Django? What
> would be the pros and cons of having a Django-powered team website?
Most Mozilla websites are built on a Python+Django platform. The only
Django-powered *blog* I know of is https://mobilepartners.mozilla.org
which still isn't really a blog, but uses Mezzanine as its CMS
(http://mezzanine.jupo.org). Mezzanine is pretty new and doesn't seem as
full-featured as WordPress, though I haven't worked with it myself so
I'm not really qualified to give a detailed assessment. I've heard mixed
Again, the question of platform is mostly a question of the type of
content QMO will house. If it's a blog, I recommend WordPress. If it's
not a blog, then I do not recommend WordPress.
If it *is* a blog and you just really want to use something that isn't
WordPress, you should evaluate all the options objectively and make an
informed decision rather than take a knee-jerk opposition to WordPress
for the sake of it.
My best advice is: Don't start by picking a platform and then stuff your
website into its box. Instead, figure out what you want from this
website and then choose a platform that meets your needs. Define the
problem before you start trying to solve it.
That being said, you still have to work within some constraints. It's
really hard for one site to do absolutely everything, and cramming in a
lot of "nice to have" gizmos often detracts from the "must have" core
features. You start with a wish list then cut it down to something you
can actually build under the given constraints. Sorting out a realistic
set of requirements will inform your choice of platform.
> 5. If the QA team were to re-design QMO while retaining Wordpress, what
> would be the scope of work involved?
The current QMO theme incorporates a lot of custom code to enable
features and functionality that WP lacks out of the box, with third
party plugins filling in many of the gaps. The scope of a redesign is
only dictated by your requirements for content and functionality.
If WP meets your content needs without a lot of custom hacking, it could
be relatively simple to put together a new theme. If you need lots of
custom features, that obviously requires more effort and/or finding and
integrating suitable plugins. And, of course, if you add a lot of
plugins to get more special features, we could be right back where we
> 6. If the QA team were to re-design QMO while switching to Django, what
> would be the scope of work involved?
This would pretty much mean building a brand new site from scratch. It's
impossible to estimate the scope without a better sense of the
requirements, but to give you some sort of ballpark, the webprod team
typically does this sort of thing in around 8-12 weeks with two or three
dedicated developers, a graphic designer, a UX designer, a QA engineer,
and a project manager. It is not something to be taken lightly.
> 7. Going forward, what is your vision for QMO?
I'm probably not qualified to present a real vision for QMO since I'm
not a primary user. I'm sure your team and community has a much grander
vision than I do. You need to decide what you want to get from QMO and
go from there.
I hope this proves helpful and I'm happy to answer any other questions
or offer any further advice/opinions.
|Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)||Parul Mathur||7/28/14 5:19 PM|
Thanks to everyone who has taken the time and effort to give us feedback
on QMO so far.
Here is a summary of everyone's feedback, listed category-wise. (If
something is misunderstood or missing, please let me know. New ideas are
Purpose of QMO
* the entrance page to QA team
* explain what the QA work is
* how QMO is structured for the different products in Mozilla
* welcoming spot for our QA community
* help the community get involved with QA activities: clear directions
on how to start, depending on your skills/interests to give pointers to
more advanced documentation, to promote the upcoming events.
* surface recent news (blogs, feeds) about testing needs,
accomplishments and events
* a summary of how to start at QMO, for the new contributor and pinned
on the home page (How I Can Help Test - should get more prominence).
* documentation should move to Mozilla Developer Network (MDN) where the
rest of Mozilla's documentation resides and is well-indexed by search
* Event Notification and better Event Calendar - upcoming events *first*
* easy way to adding the events to the calendar (Google, Apple, Lighting
and others), rather than downloading.
* Showing the Badges for QA.
* interaction via IRC
* platform for QA education (open source testing tools, technical skills)
* listing of community members and their contributions / areas of focus
QMO Home Page
* remove the login on the top right of the home page
* create Planet QA with the blog - syndicate feeds from team members' blogs
* update the careers button to the correct link
* publicize open QA meeting on Wednesdays (see https://qa.ubuntu.com/
* keep teams icons since they are adorable (kudos to Craig Cook for
* Video section - get rid of it
* updated theme
* mobile support
* Team photo on team page
* each team member's email address for direct community interaction
* links to highlight any specific events/news/blog posts targeting their
* MDN / Wiki links on how to participate in their work.
* link directly to the One and Done tasks already filtered for that project
* the Desktop Firefox page should have links to Nightly/Aurora/Beta
Based on this summary, I've designed a mockup of what the QMO Home Page
could potentially look like:
Do you think that the mockup fulfills everyone's wish list, or have
things been left off? All feedback is welcome! :-)
Mozilla Community Member
(IRC nick pragmatic on #qa)