Re: UI and scope

I think the general point is that we should write about what must be achieved, but not how.  Don't say "the UA must present a dialog to the user", "the UA must have a preference setting", and so on;  there may be better ways for the user to answer a question or express a continuing option than with a dialog box or a setting in the preferences, respectively.

It's fine to write, as we have, that something must reflect the user's intent, and so on.

I am having trouble imagining how we could be more precise, but I am open to suggestions.

On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:15 , Heather West wrote:

> Thanks Alan - JC, and others, I'm not suggesting changing anything, just clarifying the current lines around UI. For example, on the last call Aleecia asserted that "some UI design" was out of scope, but requiring that a UA does not choose without asking the user was in scope. I see the difference between those two things, but there's a significant gray area between them that I think it would be helpful to resolve explicitly.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote:
> Hi Heather,
> 
> I think what you're describing makes sense. I agree with JC and a few others – and believe that this is probably not an issue that is in need of changing the charter. Rather, there seemed to be a number of times on recent calls that any reference to the browser UI was deemed out of scope. And your suggested clarification works for me – although it would be helpful to hear from some of the other browsers on this issue.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> From: Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>
> Date: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:49 PM
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: UI and scope
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:50:43 +0000
> 
> Folks, there's been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks that references the initial charter excluding user interface, and UI is generally used as a way to end conversation (sometimes even productive conversation). It feels a little bit like we're creating a new incantation ("this is a requirement!" versus "this touches UI!") that we need to clarify so we don't go down the same rathole over and over next week, and that we know what's fair game.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com | 202-643-6381
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com | 202-643-6381

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.