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

Re: UI and scope

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:50:32 -0400
To: Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC049B82.1C6A4%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Heather,

I think what you're describing makes sense. I agree with JC and a few others
 and believe that this is probably not an issue that is in need of changing
the charter. Rather, there seemed to be a number of times on recent calls
that any reference to the browser UI was deemed out of scope. And your
suggested clarification works for me  although it would be helpful to hear
from some of the other browsers on this issue.


From:  Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>
Date:  Friday, June 15, 2012 8:49 PM
To:  "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  UI and scope
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:50:43 +0000

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 Monday, 18 June 2012 12:51:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:51 UTC