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

Re: straw poll: Is page info summary a non-Goal?

From: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:29:09 -0400
Message-Id: <1686A519-A530-4E42-8CAE-DFD27F9B51D5@mozilla.com>
Cc: <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
To: "Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>

I hate to kill a rec that a) improves upon existing UI and b) stands  
a strong chance of actual implementation, strictly on the basis of  
time (I think the scope argument is weak), but I appreciate that I  
wasn't present for the meeting in which this was discussed.

If we feel that time trumps any perceived gain, and that we should be  
restricted to threat-response recommendations only, so be it, but the  
arguments that we're "spending too much time" on it are surprising to  
me, since it feels like it's not a highly contentious question, and  
not likely to occupy a lot of our time.

My own vote would be to leave it in, but I would support someone who  
said we might want to consider recs in order of perceived urgency, if  
we're worried about getting certain ones in ahead of time crunches.



On 15-Aug-07, at 1:58 PM, Close, Tyler J. wrote:

> Given the tight timeline for our Working Group, I think it is crucial
> that we prioritize our efforts around achieving our primary goals.
> Making efficient use of our time is even more important for this WG,
> given the likelihood that we may need to iterate through the
> recommendation -> testing cycle.
> To focus our efforts on our primary goals, I propose that we
> de-emphasize work on the page info summary
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/ 
> rewrite.html#pageinfosummary>. In
> particular, I propose that this work become a Note, similar to the
> Threat Trees Note, and not be included in our FPWD Recommendations.
> We'll have a straw poll in our next telecon on this question.
> I think the page info summary is a non-Goal, as specified by  
> section 3.1
> of our Note
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/note/Overview.html#completeness>.
> Additionally, our Note states in many places that: "This Working Group
> is chartered to recommend user interfaces that help users make trust
> decisions on the Web." The user studies this WG has considered all  
> show
> almost non-existent use of the page info summary. In general, users
> don't go digging for additional security information when engaged in a
> web browsing activity. Providing more or better options for digging
> won't help users make trust decisions. Such information may be of  
> use to
> expert users, but providing recommendations for the display of this
> information is not the job of this WG. Considering such recommendation
> proposals also requires solving difficult problems like display on
> non-desktop browser user-agents, such as smart phones, widgets,  
> etc. We
> simply don't have time to address these issues in a meaningful way,  
> and
> doing so takes time away from working on our primary goals.
> --Tyler

Johnathan Nightingale
Human Shield
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 19:29:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:17 UTC