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

Re: UI and scope

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:01:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8ced+6hWWLYGrDA8gmJERbPuFB0tORfPcD=Pif4+ObSnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Bjoern, the charter allows for "guidelines that define the user
experience". The only thing that is specifically excluded is "exact
presentation to the user." Requirements around UI are not excluded

Here's a few examples that would seem not to violate the charter. I am
merely using them as examples, not advocating for them specifically at this

a) When the API provided to request an exception is called by a site, the
user's preference must be solicited.
b) The user interface must allow the user to make a decision as to whether
they wish to specify a DNT preference of "on", "off" or no preference at
c) The user interface must make the following items clear as part of the
process by which a user turns the DNT preference "on": <summary of what DNT
does and does not do>
d) When the API provided to request an exception is called by a site, the
user's preference must be solicited via an active mechanism such as via a
dialog, infobar, or other mechanism that would attract the attention of
most users; the mere presence of a "passive" indicator (such as an icon
changing color or the appearance of a small icon) would not be considered

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * 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 02:01:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:41:09 UTC