- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:34:56 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> Ian and Anne both suggested that I should add most of this >>> justification to the Design Principles document itself. I will likely >>> replace the current abstract and introduction with something based on >>> this email. I suggest that those with an interest in the Design >>> Principles should voice their objections to this plan. >> >> Would you be adverse to those with an interest in the Design >> Principles voicing support for this plan? :-) >> >> I believe that the text below, when both the 'content' and 'tone' are >> taken into consideration, go a long way towards satisfying the >> requests for a 'disclaimer'. In particular, the text explicitly >> acknowledges that not all of the principles enjoy full agreement, and >> that not all of the principles have proven to be useful. Giving >> people an opportunity to add to this list -- with you providing >> editorial control over the 'tone' of the additions -- would also be a >> good idea, IMHO. >> >> The only paragraph I see that requires major rework is the one that >> starts with "The Design Principles never quite advanced to a formally >> adopted Note.". My suggestion is that the bulk of the remaining >> content and tone be retained intact. > > Thanks for voicing your support. I think sections 1 and 2 are the most > suitable as replacement front matter. My support was predicated on sections 1 through 8 being included. >>> There are also some suggested additions and removals of principles at >>> the end. >> >> My suggestion is that you incorporate them into the document exactly >> as you have done below: as suggestions. Perhaps this section doesn't >> go into the abstract or introduction, but instead in an appendix or >> other back matter. > > I'll think about what to do with that content. Suggestions from others > along similar lines are welcome as well. It strikes me as odd that the > Design Principles document would declare parts of itself to be not > useful, or that it would suggest additions which are not actually present. I actually think that by setting expectations appropriately it makes the design principles *more* useful. Future projects who wish to take a similar approach are likely to encounter the same or similar issues. There is no magic bullet and this document should not be a marketing brochure. Reality is complicated and always incomplete. As a Note this document can identify areas that merit further exploration. > Regards, > Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 23:35:34 UTC