should we say "critical controls" or just "controls".

Hi folks


the wording for personilazation (issue 6) that we seem to be moving towards is:


 For pages that contains interactive controls or with more then one regions, one of the following is true:  
 a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls OR
  contextual information for regions and  [critical ] controls is programmatically determined. 



where critical controls  could be defined something like:  controls that are essential for the task that a user may have come to the page for 
(see issue 6 for other definitions)


Here is the question: should we say "critical controls" or just "controls"?


The advantage of saying "critical controls" is it limits the amount of work that the author has to do. so you only need to add sematics to some controls (of course you do not have to add any with option 1)


The disadvantage is there is a bit of a judgment call on what is a critical control. Note that we are not asking you to identify that they are critical control or not, just to add contextual information to them. So if you are not sure you can always just add the contextual information. The point is you do not need to add contextual information to things that you are sure are extra. (it is a more limited usage then the the "core" was used in the last version.)


So for example, on a page to compose an email, the send button would be critical, but undo button or format buttons would not be critical. If you had an app for businesses with different buttons for different types of employees they would all be critical. if you are not sure you would never be at fault for adding more contextual information, you would just be doing more then the minimum. We could also add a lot of examples in the understanding document to help. I would prefer to leave it in but I do not want to lose the SC just to help authors do less work.


Which do you prefer? 



All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter