W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2012

UI and scope

From: Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:49:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+Z3oOYQa1D_sxooqG+i9rRj4TxzZ-dO+hKBk33aJV5A0PXfAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Folks, there's been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks that
references the initial charter excluding user interface, and UI is
generally used as a way to end conversation (sometimes even productive
conversation). It feels a little bit like we're creating a new incantation
("this is a requirement!" versus "this touches UI!") that we need to
clarify so we don't go down the same rathole over and over next week, and
that we know what's fair game.

The charter is relatively clear, but still leaves some gray areas: "While
guidelines that define the user experience or user interface may be useful
(and within scope), the Working Group will not specify the exact
presentation to the user." It seems to me like the last few calls have
played a little fast and loose with that - some things seem fair, and then
very similar levels of detail get dismissed out of hand as UI-related.

I'm hoping that ahead of the F2F we could spend some time hashing out what
kinds of requirements are in scope, and what's out of scope*. *In general,
it seems to me that exact pixel-by-pixel presentation is out of scope for
the WG, and general requirements or guidelines around presentation is in
scope. Does this sound right to the rest of the group? Can we agree on that
distinction for the F2F?


-- 

Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com | 202-643-6381
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2012 00:50:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC