W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-indie-ui-comments@w3.org > January to March 2013

Comment on IndieUI: Events 22 January 2013

From: Patrick Harms <patrick.harms@informatik.uni-goettingen.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:09:35 +0100
Message-ID: <511A06CF.4090407@informatik.uni-goettingen.de>
To: public-indie-ui-comments@w3.org
Hello everybody,

Thank your for the draft specification. I was seeking for a layer like 
this for my own research work. Maybe my following comments can help to 
extend and improve the specification.

To me the specification is a shift from the lexical layer of an 
application to a more syntactical or even semantic layer of design. 
Naming an event explicitly as an undo event is giving it a semantic that 
is usually not connected to a lexical event like a key stroke. I would 
include and describe this shift in the introduction of the 
specification. The levels of design are e.g. named in Shneiderman and 
Plaisant "Designing the User Interface - Strategies for Effective 
Human-Computer Interaction" (2010).

The specification strongly focusses on web applications (e.g. in section 
1.2 goal 3). But I propose to make it more independent of the web and 
HTML. In general I think the list of events is also applicable for any 
other application like apps on any kind of operating system. Therefore, 
I would also start the specification with naming and describing the 
events and then showing the appropriate implementation in the context of 
HTML. This may in the future be extended with a description of the 
implementation for any other kind of platform.

In section 2.1.1 I would prefer the term receives/@receives.

I think the list of events needs to be extended. E.g. changing the value 
of a text field is not included as far as I understood the list. But in 
my opinion the specification should cover all kinds of events to really 
support user interface independence. Or is it extending the list of 
events like "onclick" on elements? If this is the case, than it must be 
clearly indicated in the specification. However, to me the specification 
is a new layer of events, i.e. a more syntactical, even semantic one 
(see above). Therefore, it should be a closed, complete, and detached 
set of events that can be implemented on different platforms and to 
which existing event sets can be mapped.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Best regards,

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 09:30:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:35:27 UTC