W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-indie-ui@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Comment on IndieUI: Events 22 January 2013

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:01:04 -0500
To: Independent User Interface Task Force <public-indie-ui@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick Harms <patrick.harms@informatik.uni-goettingen.de>
Message-ID: <20130213170104.GA5323@concerto.rednote.net>

Forwarding the following comment received on our Events FPWD ...


Patrick Harms writes:
> 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,
> Patrick


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

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

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 17:01:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:15 UTC