diff --git a/docs/artifact-registry.md b/docs/artifact-registry.md index 7fb97a1..1f14ef9 100644 --- a/docs/artifact-registry.md +++ b/docs/artifact-registry.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ document of a type. `Primary File` may contain a glob (e.g. | SA | Stakeholder Analysis | docs/stakeholder-analysis.md | 002 | | PP | Project Plan | docs/project-plan.md | 002 | | MIL | Milestone / Gateway | docs/milestones/*.md | 003 | -| RC | SQA Review Record | docs/sqa/reviews/rc-*.md | 007 | +| RC | SQA Review Record | docs/sqa/reviews/rc-*.md | 008 | ## Languages diff --git a/docs/business-case.md b/docs/business-case.md index 6317271..1fdcceb 100644 --- a/docs/business-case.md +++ b/docs/business-case.md @@ -11,7 +11,8 @@ ## Version History | Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | -| 2026-10-07 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | [b823d1f] | +| 2026-10-07 | Deprecated | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | [b823d1f] | +| 2026-10-08 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Added objective O6 and criterion SC8 (every dot clearly visible), the contrast standard, and a risk | pending | --- @@ -35,6 +36,9 @@ proceed. - **Quality standards:** every quality criterion is tagged with an ISO/IEC 25010:2023 characteristic. The code is reviewed against `qc-programming-python` before the pull request. +- **Contrast:** the contrast ratio of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines + (WCAG) 2.x, computed from relative luminance: 1.0 for a colour identical to + white and 21.0 for black. - **Source requirements:** the course lecture "The Hirst Painting Project Part 2 - Drawing the Dots" (a written summary of the lecture is the only source supplied; the reference image is not). @@ -46,6 +50,8 @@ Without one, the loops, the `turtle` positioning logic and the colour handling taught in the lecture stay theory. The lecture itself names the usual failures: a visible trail between dots, a missing last dot, white shades in the palette that make dots invisible, and a slow, visibly drawing turtle. +Drawing the first painting from a photograph showed one more: faint colours +that pass the white-shade rule but still hardly show on the white background. ## Business Opportunity @@ -63,6 +69,7 @@ so the effort the framework adds can be judged against the size of the work. | O3 | Colour every dot by a random choice from that palette. | | O4 | Keep the finished painting on screen until the user clicks, and present it cleanly: turtle hidden, no trail between dots. | | O5 | Deliver the work through the framework: plan and issues first, then code reviewed against `qc-programming-python` (`RC-*` verdict `Go`) before the pull request. | +| O6 | Keep every dot clearly visible on the white background: drop palette colours whose contrast with white is below 2.0. | ## Scope @@ -70,6 +77,7 @@ so the effort the framework adds can be judged against the size of the work. - One Python program using the standard `turtle` module, the `random` module and the `colorgram` library. - Extraction of the palette from one reference image, with white shades removed. +- Removal of faint colours from the palette: colours whose contrast with white is below 2.0. - Drawing of the 10 by 10 dot grid: dot size, spacing, row change and heading handling. - Screen handling: `exitonclick`, hiding the turtle, pen up between dots, drawing speed. - The framework documents the plan-first workflow requires for this work (Business Case, Stakeholder Analysis, Project Plan, milestones), and the review records for them and for the code. @@ -86,7 +94,7 @@ so the effort the framework adds can be judged against the size of the work. ### Tangible Benefits -- A working program that produces the painting described in O1 to O4. +- A working program that produces the painting described in O1 to O4, with every dot clearly visible (O6). - A reviewed codebase with a recorded review (`RC-*`) against the Python checklist. - A traceable record from objective to milestone to issue to code. @@ -112,6 +120,7 @@ framework that the repository is built on. | SC5 | Clean result (O4) | Turtle hidden at the end; no line drawn between dots; window stays open until a click | Visual check of one full run | | SC6 | Run time (O4) | The full painting is drawn in 30 seconds or less | Timed run on the developer machine (value confirmed by S01) | | SC7 | Review gate (O5) | `RC-*` for the code has verdict `Go`; the pull request closes every issue it completes | Review record and pull request description | +| SC8 | Visible colours (O6) | 0 palette colours with a contrast ratio against white below 2.0; SC3 still holds for the final palette (at least 2 colours) | Print of the extracted palette with the contrast of every colour, checked against the limit (value chosen by S01) | ## Risks @@ -121,6 +130,7 @@ framework that the repository is built on. | `colorgram` or the `turtle` graphical toolkit (Tk) cannot be installed or does not run on the developer machine | The program cannot be run or checked | Check both in the first task of the palette phase, before any other work depends on them | | White or near-white shades stay in the palette | Dots are invisible on the white background, so SC1 looks failed | SC3 sets an explicit threshold and is checked on the printed palette | | Off-by-one errors: last dot of a row or the last row missing, or a trail drawn | SC1 or SC5 fails | SC1 counts the dots and SC5 checks for a trail; both are verified in the code review | +| The contrast cut-off removes too many colours | The painting looks dull | The limit of 2.0 sits in a gap in the palette of the reference image: 8 of its 30 colours fall below it, and the palest colour kept has a contrast of 2.56, so 22 remain. SC3 still requires at least 2, and S01 judges the picture in the timed run | | Framework process outweighs the size of the work | Schedule slips and the exercise stops being a small one | Keep to two phases and plain tasks; no use cases or design artifacts (see Out of Scope) | | The only named reviewer is also the author | Reviews are not independent, as the review process requires | S01 accepted a documented self-review on 2026-10-07; each review record states it | @@ -158,7 +168,7 @@ Roles, power and interest are in [SA-001]; they are not repeated here. | Stakeholder ID (SA) | Interest in this project | | --- | --- | -| S01 | Owner of all objectives (O1 to O5); accepts the work and answers the open questions above | +| S01 | Owner of all objectives (O1 to O6); accepts the work and answers the open questions above | ## Recommendation diff --git a/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-007-business-case-visible-colours.md b/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-007-business-case-visible-colours.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b1087b2 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/sqa/reviews/rc-007-business-case-visible-colours.md @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +# Review Record: Business Case BC-001, objective O6 (delta) + +## Metadata +| Key | Value | +| --- | --- | +| ID | RC-007 | +| CrossReference | [BC-001], [RC-001], [SA-001], [QC-BC-001], [QC-LANG-001] | + +## Version History +| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit | +| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | +| 2026-10-08 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version (draft prepared by the assistant for S01 to confirm)
Terms confirmed by S01, verdict `Go` | pending | + +--- + +## Artifact Under Review + +- Instance reviewed: [BC-001], the revision of 2026-10-08 (second row of its Version History) +- Checklist used: [QC-BC-001], together with [QC-LANG-001] because the Business Case is written in the PO language +- Scope: delta re-review of criteria 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of [QC-BC-001] and criteria 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 of [QC-LANG-001]. Reason: the revision adds objective O6, success criterion SC8, a scope item, a risk row, the contrast standard (WCAG) and a sentence in the Problem Statement, and it changes the Stakeholders row from "O1 to O5" to "O1 to O6". Earlier record: [RC-001], which passed every criterion on the first version. The other criteria are untouched by the revision and keep their earlier result: [QC-BC-001] 1 (cost-benefit), 7 (assumptions and constraints) and 8 (recommendation), and [QC-LANG-001] 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 (metadata, headings, no translated twin, no change of language) +- Language and domain: en / it (the artifact's Metadata rows) +- Language reviewer: none. S01 reads English and knows the IT domain. S01 is also the author; S01 accepted a documented self-review on 2026-10-07 (see [RC-001], Action Item 1) + +**Status of this record:** final. The assistant read the revised Business +Case against the criteria above; S01 confirmed the open point on 2026-10-08 +and the verdict is `Go`. + +**Stakeholder Analysis:** [SA-001] is not revised. S01's concern "The result looks clean and the window stays open until a click" (Usability) already covers O6, and every concern still traces to an objective, so its own checklist result is unchanged. + +**Evidence for SC8 and the risk row:** the palette of the reference image was measured on 2026-10-08 with the WCAG contrast ratio against white. The 30 colours range from 1.22 to 15.85; the eight palest lie between 1.22 and 1.96, the next colour is at 2.56, so a limit of 2.0 removes 8 and keeps 22. The limit was chosen by S01 on 2026-10-08. + +## Checklist Results + +| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes | +| --- | --- | --- | --- | +| 2 | Risks are identified with documented impact and mitigation | Pass | The Risks table now has 7 rows; the new row (the contrast cut-off removes too many colours) has the impact "The painting looks dull" and a mitigation with figures from the measurement above | +| 3 | Success criteria are measurable, stating explicit targets rather than vague aspirations | Pass | SC8 states a target (0 palette colours with a contrast ratio against white below 2.0) and a measure (the printed palette with the contrast of every colour). It is consistent with SC3, which still holds for the final palette | +| 4 | Scope explicitly separates In Scope vs Out of Scope | Pass | The new In Scope item names the faint-colour removal and its limit; Out of Scope is unchanged and still distinct (no other parameters, no interface, no packaging) | +| 5 | Stakeholders are cross-referenced to Stakeholder Analysis IDs rather than re-described inline | Pass | The Stakeholders table still cites S01 only, now for "O1 to O6"; the new text refers to S01 by ID | +| 6 | Methodology and quality-standard foundation are stated explicitly (e.g. ISO/IEC 25010, Larman) | Pass | The Methodological and Standards Foundation gains a "Contrast" bullet naming the WCAG 2.x contrast ratio computed from relative luminance, with its two reference values (1.0 for white, 21.0 for black) | + +## Language and Domain Results + +| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes | +| --- | --- | --- | --- | +| 3 | The content (prose and table cells) is written in the stated language | Pass | The new prose and table cells are English | +| 4 | The register matches the one the registry gives for the artifact type | Pass | Registry gives IT Executive English for BC. The new objective, criterion and risk state decisions and targets; the technical definition (relative luminance) is confined to the standards bullet where a standard belongs | +| 5 | Domain terms are the PO terms of the domain's dictionary, with no synonyms | Pass | S01 confirmed on 2026-10-07 that no dictionary is needed. The new term *faint colour* is used in every new place (Problem Statement, In Scope, Risks) and is defined by SC8 as a contrast below 2.0; *white shade* keeps its meaning from SC3 | +| 9 | A reviewer competent in the domain, and in the language, has confirmed that the domain terms are used correctly | Pass | S01 confirmed on 2026-10-08 that the new terms *faint colour* and *contrast ratio* are used correctly (Action Item 1). S01 is also the author; the self-review was accepted on 2026-10-07 | +| 10 | Abbreviations are spelled out on first use, in the stated language | Pass | WCAG is spelled out at its first use ("Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.x"); O6 and SC8 are defined by their tables | + +## Overall Verdict + +Go — every criterion in the delta passes. S01 confirmed on 2026-10-08 that the new terms *faint colour* and *contrast ratio* are used correctly, so [QC-LANG-001] criterion 9 is closed and the action item is closed. The revision of [BC-001] can be `Accepted`, after which the new phase can be planned against O6 and SC8. + +## Action Items + +| # | Action | Owner | Due | +| --- | --- | --- | --- | +| 1 | Confirm that the new terms *faint colour* and *contrast ratio* are used correctly (QC-LANG-001 criterion 9). **Closed 2026-10-08:** S01 confirmed both terms | S01 | 2026-10-09 | + +--- + +[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md +[RC-001]: ./rc-001-business-case.md +[SA-001]: ../../stakeholder-analysis.md +[QC-BC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-business-case.md +[QC-LANG-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-language-domain.md