RE: Interpretation of "web page" in software context

I agree with David that the term is, to be kind, suboptimal.  But also with Mike that viewport is probably too limited.

I don't have another phrase to offer at the moment, but I would remind everyone how we replaced an opaque term (analog, time-dependent input) with longer but more natural language (input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints), and WCAG was much the better for it.  That change seems so obvious in hindsight, but it may have taken years!

For starters, I am not entirely convinced that "context" is a noun.  A phrase like "in the context of interaction" seems easier to parse for me than "interaction context".

--
Top posted for my convenience.  Who cares about posterity?


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:48 PM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: 'Andi Snow-Weaver'; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Interpretation of "web page" in software context

I worry david that that is too limiting.

and active viewport is just as greek to people as interaction context.  ANd it focuses on Visual interfaces.
 (PS we didn't make up interaction context.  it comes from the writings of a UI expert and was used by the Europeans)

But I agree with you -- it is very hard to think of a term that is concrete and yet abstract so it can apply generally - to all UI.
kind of a contradiction.  SO concrete examples might help.


Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net


On Jun 18, 2012, at 6:01 PM, David MacDonald wrote:

For me, "Interaction Context" is too difficult to parse...difficult to imagine, visualize or conceptualize...  it's like the old days of WCAG when we were talking about a "web unit" (we had rejected "web page" on the grounds that web apps weren't static) we had many people complaining about "web unit"...  and I mentioned the analogy of "horsepower" and how the word morphed when cars were created, and through some discussions ended up back with web page which included interaction...

I mention this because maybe we don't have to invent another term (we have enough people complaining about our new terms) ...  how about "active window"? (or active viewport)

Cheers
David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
  "Enabling the Web"
www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: June-18-12 10:48 AM
To: Andi Snow-Weaver
Cc: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Interpretation of "web page" in software context

Hmmm
might the answer be found by exploring why 'interaction context' doesn't seem to work?

a good place to start might be in finding out what the problems we have are - and then finding a way to address them.

Can someone or someones summarize the problems with interaction context?

Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net


On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:

We're quickly coming to the point in our work where we will not be able to reach consensus on the guidance for the success criteria until we come to consensus on interpretation of "web page" and "set of web pages" in the software context.

The proposal to use "interaction context" for "web page" has not yet been accepted.

We need another proposal. Ideas anyone?

Andi