W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] Please include a statement of purpose and user interaction expectations for <feature>

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:22:02 +0300
Message-ID: <26b395e60906230522m2f5b60b0x5eebaf1c4a0238e7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> Precisely: defining behaviour would turn us into a UI specification  which
> we dearly want to avoid.

yep.

> Constant prompting makes for a dreadful UX, that's for sure,

yep.

> but fixing that should be up to UA vendors.

or rather "getting it right" (and preferably the first time).

> At the end of the day,
> I do however have some confidence that they can do UI much better than
> anything Java related :)

I have confidence that certain vendors could. But the vendor to which
Henri alludes, and certain vendors in certain spaces OTOH, we don't
have confidence about their abilities.

But it really is beyond the scope of a specification like this to say
"don't drive your users crazy".

Our goal should be to avoid requirements written as "drive your user
crazy". There's apparently a MUST in some HTTP spec for some stupid
error case which would effectively mean "you must annoy your user
whenever you encounter this", thankfully either all browser vendors
missed it, or they chose to ignore it.

WRT the codecs thing, I'm not sure if it's in the minutes, but iirc
the example was mine so as to avoid having something which said "like
APIs" but provided no examples.

And yes, granting permissions for features is beyond the scope of this
specification.
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 12:22:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT