Re: UI and scope

Bjoern, the charter allows for "guidelines that define the user
experience". The only thing that is specifically excluded is "exact
presentation to the user." Requirements around UI are not excluded
wholesale.

Here's a few examples that would seem not to violate the charter. I am
merely using them as examples, not advocating for them specifically at this
time:

a) When the API provided to request an exception is called by a site, the
user's preference must be solicited.
b) The user interface must allow the user to make a decision as to whether
they wish to specify a DNT preference of "on", "off" or no preference at
all.
c) The user interface must make the following items clear as part of the
process by which a user turns the DNT preference "on": <summary of what DNT
does and does not do>
d) When the API provided to request an exception is called by a site, the
user's preference must be solicited via an active mechanism such as via a
dialog, infobar, or other mechanism that would attract the attention of
most users; the mere presence of a "passive" indicator (such as an icon
changing color or the appearance of a small icon) would not be considered
sufficient.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Heather West wrote:
> >The charter is relatively clear, but still leaves some gray areas: "While
> >guidelines that define the user experience or user interface may be useful
> >(and within scope), the Working Group will not specify the exact
> >presentation to the user." It seems to me like the last few calls have
> >played a little fast and loose with that - some things seem fair, and then
> >very similar levels of detail get dismissed out of hand as UI-related.
> >
> >I'm hoping that ahead of the F2F we could spend some time hashing out what
> >kinds of requirements are in scope, and what's out of scope*. *In general,
> >it seems to me that exact pixel-by-pixel presentation is out of scope for
> >the WG, and general requirements or guidelines around presentation is in
> >scope. Does this sound right to the rest of the group? Can we agree on
> that
> >distinction for the F2F?
>
> I do not think your formulation is an improvement over the charter. The
> charter is very clear as far as I am concerned: guidelines yes, require-
> ments no; your text changes that to allow "general requirements around
> presentation" which is not covered by the charter. Especially not if you
> combine it with a term like "pixel-by-pixel". One might argue that some
> requirement "must display modal prompt" is "general" rather than "pixel-
> by-pixel", but "modal prompt" is "exact presentation", and by way of
> "must" it's not a guideline, so that would be out of scope, even though
> it matches your characterization, as far as I can tell anyway.
>
> If you have an example of a "general requirement around presentation"
> that is not a specification of "exact presentation", I think it would be
> better to discuss that example rather than trying to slightly rephrase
> text in the charter. At the least, any rephrasing would have to omit
> terms like "pixel-by-pixel" as nobody would argue about differences in
> anti-aliasing algorithms that are not usually perceived by humans, but
> would nevertheless be "pixel-by-pixel" issues. Similarily, the Working
> Group could not specify anything "letter-by-letter", as providing text
> all conforming web sites or browsers have to use would be "exact presen-
> tation", and not possible because there are too many languages to con-
> sider.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
>