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

Re: UI and scope

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:47:21 +0200
To: Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ocmnt7d6of3jcbakjnmjgtdr3dh135dht8@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Heather West wrote:
>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?

I do not think your formulation is an improvement over the charter. The
charter is very clear as far as I am concerned: guidelines yes, require-
ments no; your text changes that to allow "general requirements around
presentation" which is not covered by the charter. Especially not if you
combine it with a term like "pixel-by-pixel". One might argue that some
requirement "must display modal prompt" is "general" rather than "pixel-
by-pixel", but "modal prompt" is "exact presentation", and by way of
"must" it's not a guideline, so that would be out of scope, even though
it matches your characterization, as far as I can tell anyway.

If you have an example of a "general requirement around presentation"
that is not a specification of "exact presentation", I think it would be
better to discuss that example rather than trying to slightly rephrase
text in the charter. At the least, any rephrasing would have to omit
terms like "pixel-by-pixel" as nobody would argue about differences in
anti-aliasing algorithms that are not usually perceived by humans, but
would nevertheless be "pixel-by-pixel" issues. Similarily, the Working
Group could not specify anything "letter-by-letter", as providing text
all conforming web sites or browsers have to use would be "exact presen-
tation", and not possible because there are too many languages to con-
sider.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2012 01:47:48 UTC

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