- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:01:04 -0500
- To: Independent User Interface Task Force <public-indie-ui@w3.org>
- Cc: Patrick Harms <patrick.harms@informatik.uni-goettingen.de>
Colleagues: Forwarding the following comment received on our Events FPWD ... Janina Patrick Harms writes: > Hello everybody, > > Thank your for the draft specification. I was seeking for a layer > like this for my own research work. Maybe my following comments can > help to extend and improve the specification. > > To me the specification is a shift from the lexical layer of an > application to a more syntactical or even semantic layer of design. > Naming an event explicitly as an undo event is giving it a semantic > that is usually not connected to a lexical event like a key stroke. > I would include and describe this shift in the introduction of the > specification. The levels of design are e.g. named in Shneiderman > and Plaisant "Designing the User Interface - Strategies for > Effective Human-Computer Interaction" (2010). > > The specification strongly focusses on web applications (e.g. in > section 1.2 goal 3). But I propose to make it more independent of > the web and HTML. In general I think the list of events is also > applicable for any other application like apps on any kind of > operating system. Therefore, I would also start the specification > with naming and describing the events and then showing the > appropriate implementation in the context of HTML. This may in the > future be extended with a description of the implementation for any > other kind of platform. > > In section 2.1.1 I would prefer the term receives/@receives. > > I think the list of events needs to be extended. E.g. changing the > value of a text field is not included as far as I understood the > list. But in my opinion the specification should cover all kinds of > events to really support user interface independence. Or is it > extending the list of events like "onclick" on elements? If this is > the case, than it must be clearly indicated in the specification. > However, to me the specification is a new layer of events, i.e. a > more syntactical, even semantic one (see above). Therefore, it > should be a closed, complete, and detached set of events that can be > implemented on different platforms and to which existing event sets > can be mapped. > > I hope these comments are helpful. > > Best regards, > Patrick -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Email: janina@rednote.net Linux Foundation Fellow Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 17:01:44 UTC