W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > June 2018

Re: Updates to CAPTCHA doc - impacts CfC to publish

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:15:56 -0400
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Cc: APA WG <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20180627041556.GC4812@rednote.net>
Michael, All:

Thanks for the document prep. It's helpful to see this candidate FPWD
all put together.

I think we will need to discuss this on the APA call Wednesday. While
our CfC clearly advised people to expect editorial work on the document,
I'm not clear in my own mind whether we can continue to publication
under the current CfC. We'll need to discuss that.

I personally don't have a problem with most of your changes, but I would
argue for a different tack on some. Two examples:

1.)	Value judgements and the term "pernicious" in the abstract

You and I appear to have a completely different understanding of the two
sentences in the Abstract where the word "pernicious" appears.

You're suggesting it presumes background knowledge. As the author of
those two sentences, drastically revised from the 2005 Note, I can
confidently say the intent was to establish context, i.e. why are we
talking about CAPTCHA in the first place?

I can readily agree that the Abstract may not be the proper locus, and
the word "pernicious" might not be the best descriptor. However I'm
confident none of us would replace "pernicious" with "benevolent." The
idea is to say that bad automated actors pervade the web with malicious
intent. For that reason CAPTCHA exists, and it's particularly
challenging to people with disabilities.

As things stand, were we to proceed with this edit, my first post
publication action would be to put something like those sentences back
in and hold a discussion about them. They've been there for awhile and
this is the first complaint about them.

2.)	Technical terms still lacking definitions

You've removed these. But, again, my first editorial work post
publication would include returning them because I believe we will find
appropriate definitions, and because they serve a useful purpose in the
document. Now, we need to remember to again mark them for definition.

I'm wondering whether we're trying too hard to make the FPWD the final?

So, grist for our two calls Wednesday, both RQTF and APA.


Michael Cooper writes:
> I've pushed a bunch of changes to the CAPTCHA document prior to publication,
> that I believe are all editorial, but are somewhat substantial.
> The biggest one to note is the abstract rewritten. The previous abstract
> seemed to me to have too much values language in it (the word "pernicious"
> was a clue to that), and it presumed background knowledge we shouldn't
> assume readers have. The abstract is mean to be a high-level overview of the
> document, and is automatically pulled into a number of places, so even if we
> plan to edit later, it could be too late to avoid certain problems if we
> don't address prior to the first public working draft. I believe my wording
> is more neutral in tone and adequately introduces the document.
> The other noticeable change is with references. The document mainly used a
> format like "This is discussed in [XMLName]" whereas the W3C Manual of Style
> (https://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References) says the format should be
> "This is discussed in Namespaces in XML [XMLName]" to introduce the
> reference during the reading flow. I had to make judgements about how to
> incorporate these into the prose, but think it's still editorial.
> Some references I turned into ordinary links, not bibliography entries. In
> general, when citing a source, we should use bibliography references, but
> when just referring to a site or product, a simple link is sufficient.
> Another change I had done before opening the CfC to publish, but forgot to
> merge until after the CfC opened, was to add a list of terms as an appendix.
> Janina had given me the terms and some pointers towards definitions; I did
> my best to construct sensible definitions of the terms. I was unable to find
> definitions for "hot word" and "polymorphism", so those are commented out.
> Finally, this document was proposed as a version 2, but because it's a
> Working Group Note, it doesn't really make sense to version it and leave the
> old one floating around, as we can simply update the note. So I change the
> title and shortname so it will simply the old version. The previous version
> will still be accessible by dated URI, but the new publication will update
> the URI https://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ immediately, though indicating it
> as a Working Draft, not a Note until it advances again to that status.
> I believe the rest of the changes are clearly editorial. If you have
> concerns about any of these changes with respect to the documents approval
> to be published as a First Public Working Draft, please let us know.
> Summary of changes:
>  * switch to software license since Note track
>  * update copyright year
>  * genericize product name
>  * square to curly quote conversion
>  * replace quoted titles with cite
>  * lower case bibrefs
>  * bibref cleanup
>  * spell check
>  * abstract rewrite
>  * remove redundant
>  * comment out terms we don't have defs for
>  * capitalization
>  * definitions for most of the terms
>  * first pass on terms from Janina, some of them references instead
>  * update funder acknowledgement to maybe or maybe not the right one
>  * split new and old acknowledgements
>  * retitle introduction
>  * remove unnecessary IDs
>  * character entity fix
>  * add subtitle
>  * unmark as version 2
>  * reference previous note
>  * add Matt May as former editor


Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2018 04:16:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 June 2018 04:16:21 UTC