Re: Action-531: Try to tease apart aspects of the document which are UI Guidelines

Hi Thomas,

One of the changes I proposed for this action involves combining  
sections 3 and 4. Mez mentioned there might be a standard-ese reason  
for the way the information is currently presented.

This is my proposal for restructuring them, comments?

> We should combine sections 3 and 4, both sections contain  
> definitions that relate to the document as a whole and tell the  
> reader what the document is focused on.
>
> The section could look something like:
> Working Definitions and Assumptions
> 	- Document Scope
> 		- Product Classes (3.1)
> 		- Interaction Model (most of 4.1)
> 		- Content (rest of 4.1)
> 	- Terms and Definitions (4.2)
> 		- Common UI Elements
> 	- Language Conventions
> 	- Levels of Conformance
> 	- Claiming Conformance



-- Maritza

	http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/



On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Maritza Johnson wrote:

> 	
> Hi Mez,
>
> I don't know if you saw my response the other day --  I'll be on the  
> call so you can put it on tomorrow's agenda.
>
> -- Maritza
>
> 	http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Maritza Johnson wrote:
>
>> That works for me, I"ll be on the call.
>>
>>
>> -- Maritza
>>
>> 	http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Mary Ellen Zurko/Westford/IBM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Maritza. I think this is a substantial enough proposal that  
>>> we need to discuss it in a meeting. And we'll need to have an  
>>> editor there as well, as we need to get the proposal to a state  
>>> that it can be edited in. That would make it either a sequence of  
>>> smaller items, or you'd need to do an example of all the changes  
>>> for folks to look it over and get the idea.
>>>
>>> Shall we put this on the agenda of next week's meeting? If both  
>>> you and Anil can make it, then I'm game (since Thomas has already  
>>> sent regrets).
>>>
>>>           Mez
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:	Maritza Johnson <maritzaj@cs.columbia.edu>
>>> To:	W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
>>> Date:	11/04/2008 01:13 PM
>>> Subject:	Action-531: Try to tease apart aspects of the document  
>>> which are UI Guidelines
>>> Sent by:	public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This action item addresses the comment "It was not written by user
>>> interface people and not for user interface people ... and by the  
>>> time
>>> we get to the brief user interface guidance in sections 6,7 the  
>>> way is
>>> lost." On the Oct 15th call we discussed some ways to fix the
>>> document: renaming the document, adding more text to the intro,  
>>> giving
>>> UI readers more direction ...
>>>
>>> Stepping back and reading from his perspective I can see where he's
>>> coming from. The content is good but the presentation is  
>>> confusing. I
>>> think we can improve readability by reordering the sections,  
>>> renaming
>>> some of them, and explicitly indicating which sections are most
>>> relevant to UI people.
>>>
>>>
>>> The sections should be reordered to present the more general UI  
>>> advice
>>> first. Section 5 addresses the application of a specific technology
>>> and it's presented as the first section of content. We have a lot to
>>> say about TLS, but I think it should be more toward the end of the
>>> document because it's so specific. We should also consider adding an
>>> intro paragraph to 5 about why it's the most worked example.
>>>
>>> Section 7 is has the most general UI advice and should be the first
>>> section of content after the overview and scoping/definitions. We
>>> should follow it up with is separate section for communicating error
>>> messages (error handling and signalling). That's one of our stronger
>>> sections and we should highlight its importance for the design of
>>> future interactions/interfaces. The remainder of the current  
>>> section 6
>>> should follow.
>>>
>>> Section 8's name is too general. I think we're presenting this
>>> information as security lessons learned from  the mistakes/ 
>>> oversights
>>> of others. We don't have concrete advice on how/when each of them  
>>> will
>>> come up but we want people to be aware of these issues when they're
>>> designing security indicators. I don't have a great suggestion for a
>>> new name but the entire document is asking them to consider  
>>> security,
>>> so this name doesn't feel precise enough. Maybe - "Additional  
>>> Security
>>> Threats to Consider".
>>>
>>> We should combine sections 3 and 4, both sections contain  
>>> definitions
>>> that relate to the document as a whole and tell the reader what the
>>> document is focused on.
>>>
>>> The section could look something like:
>>> Working Definitions and Assumptions
>>>                 - Document Scope
>>>                                  - Product Classes (3.1)
>>>                                  - Interaction Model (most of 4.1)
>>>                                  - Content (rest of 4.1)
>>>                 - Terms and Definitions (4.2)
>>>                                  - Common UI Elements
>>>                 - Language Conventions
>>>                 - Levels of Conformance
>>>                 - Claiming Conformance
>>>
>>>
>>> The first sentence of the overview doesn't capture the intent of the
>>> document.  "This specification deals with the trust decisions that
>>> users must make online" -- aren't we dealing with the  
>>> communication of
>>> security context information and suggesting ways for UI designers to
>>> support them in making informed security decisions? (I probably  
>>> missed
>>> some long discussion about why we're using trust here instead of
>>> security.)
>>>
>>> Should we move the acknowledgements section to precede the reference
>>> section?
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Maritza
>>>
>>>                 http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>