W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > April 2007

ISSUE-55: realism is not universal, nor does ordinariness befit exceptional communications (public comment)

From: Web Security Context Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:19:48 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070417121948.8DBB947BA3@mojo.w3.org>


ISSUE-55: realism is not universal, nor does ordinariness befit exceptional communications (public comment)

http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/track/issues/55

Raised by: Bill Doyle
On product: Note: use cases etc.

>From public comments
raised by: Al Gilman Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-
authentication/2007Apr/0000.html



realism is not universal, nor does ordinariness befit exceptional 
communications 
where it says, in 10.1.3 Match between system and the real world
   The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and
   concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms.
   Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a
   natural and logical order 
please consider
It is easy for those locked in bitmapped-display or video presentation 
modalities to get carried away with this.  To the detriment of access by 
people with disabilities.

For machine personality, cartoon presentation is more suitable and less 
disquieting to users than trompe-l'oeil verisimilitude.

Verisimilitude is a tool that can always be spoofed.  The more you rely on 
real-world-liness, the harder it is to draw a sandbox around your presentation 
cues and keep others from re-using them to malign intent.

Poison warnings and European road signs use heavily symbolized presentation.  
Now I, as a U.S. habitue, find this in Germany to be overdone.  But 
verisimilitude is an easy way to optimize the behavior at the center of the 
demographic hill and drive it down at the edges.


Why? 

People with disabilities will always have to use the content in transcodes of 
the author's putative presentation.  So be sure to afford both a rigorous 
model, no matter how code-geeky, as the foundation for what you think (based 
on testing with  too-central-tendency a sample) is a usable design for a 
dialog.
please consider
the users bring diverse levels of understanding as well as different 
modalities of access, so the system can't rely entirely on familiarity of 
presentation.  Thus the system should support mixed-initiative adjustment of 
the level of 'partial understanding' that is exposed.  You have two 
performance goals that are in conflict, here:  a) does the user understand 
what you are trying to tell her? b) does she trust that you have told her the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth?
please consider
the history of 'friendly messages' is littered with the wrecks of things that 
only hide what the user needs to know.  In one place you inveigh against codes 
such as "403: forbidden".  On the other hand, this is the only touchstone 
of "ground truth" that is available cross-browser and cross-platform today.  
Don't let it go.  Just as the UAAG supports "source view" as one option the 
user should have; likewise in the "access to all conditional content" the 
verbatim evidence from e.g. protocol messages should be an available option
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:19:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:46 GMT