RE: User intended interactions [1st & 3rd Parties]

+1.  Your wording is better.  I just wanted to point out that our definitions need to be definable outside of the specific visitor's viewpoint.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karld@opera.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 12:58 PM
To: Kevin Smith
Cc: Tom Lowenthal; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: User intended interactions [1st & 3rd Parties]

Kevin, 

I agree with the comments about what the "user is thinking".
Not testable in any way. That said:

Le 10 nov. 2011 à 19:51, Kevin Smith a écrit :
> I would recommend rewriting 7 as:
> 7. The user visits a site. There is a weather widget with no obvious branding or clear indication that the widget is not operated by and part of the site that they are visiting.  The user clicks on the widget to scroll forward and see tomorrow's weather. The widget is at all times a third party.


Would you clarify what do you mean by "no obvious branding or clear indication".
because that would not work either with accessibility requirements, if you meant visual cues for the branding. Our documents would have a bad review from Protocols & Formats Working Group by excluding some categories of users. 

What about something such as

    7. The user visits a site. There is a weather widget with no
    accessible (in a wcag way) indication that the widget is not
    operated by and part of the site that they are visiting. The
    user clicks on the widget to scroll forward and see
    tomorrow's weather. The widget is at all times a third
    party.


--
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software

Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 20:05:58 UTC