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

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

From: <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:03:50 -0500
Message-ID: <9D471E876696BE4DA103E939AE64164D10A6C9@msgswbmnmsp17.wellsfargo.com>
To: <hahnt@us.ibm.com>, <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
I agree.  Please leave it in.


From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Timothy Hahn
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:00 AM
To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: straw poll: Is page info summary a non-Goal?

Hi all, 

I prefer to leave it in. 

I believe that Page Info Summary is in line with our Goal (2.3) of
"Consistent presentation of security information".  Further, while one
reading of our non-goal (3.1) "Presentation of all security information"
might at first appear to cause Page Info Summary to be considered out of
scope, I recall that we placed emphasis on the word "all" in this
non-goal, so as not to be presumptuous that we were all-knowing or would
ever be so.  Also, in the description of that non-goal (3.1), we state
that our recommendations should map to use cases.  I believe Page Info
Summary does map to a number of our use cases. 

Tim Hahn
IBM Distinguished Engineer

Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
fax: 919.224.2530

From: 	"Dan Schutzer" <dan.schutzer@fstc.org> 

To: 	"'Johnathan Nightingale'" <johnath@mozilla.com>, "'Close, Tyler
J.'" <tyler.close@hp.com> 

Cc: 	<public-wsc-wg@w3.org> 

Date: 	08/21/2007 05:57 AM 

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


I'd leave it in

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [
mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Johnathan Nightingale
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Close, Tyler J.
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: straw poll: Is page info summary a non-Goal?

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 Tuesday, 21 August 2007 15:10:58 UTC

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