Re: ISSUE-58: simplicity is in the [diverse] world of the user (public comment)

I think we're good with this. I looked at our goals again to see if 
there's some better way to make clear that our recommendations will cover 
both the abstract and the concrete (the abstract so it will translate to a 
variety of user agents and contexts, and the concrete so it can be 
tested). I didn't come up with anything to add. But it would be great if 
anyone else did. 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




Web Security Context Issue Tracker <dean+cgi@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
04/17/2007 08:23 AM
Please respond to
Web Security Context WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>


To
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
cc

Subject
ISSUE-58: simplicity is in the [diverse] world of the user (public 
comment)








ISSUE-58: simplicity is in the [diverse] world of the user (public 
comment)

http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/track/issues/58

Raised by: Bill Doyle
On product: Note: use cases etc.

>From public comments
raised by: Al Gilman Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-usable-
authentication/2007Apr/0000.html


simplicity is in the [diverse] world of the user 
where it says, in 10.1.6 Aesthetic and minimalist design
Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or
   rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue
   competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their
   relative visibility
please consider
presentation effects that communicate subliminally are not subject to 
quite 
the same contention as is, say, the collection of objects in a popup. 
True, 
there can be too many of them.  But for a finite number, they tend to play 

nice together.  Note also that best current practice uses combo boxes at 
times 
where the diversity of method afforded adds more than it subtracts.
please consider
same old -- layer the answer by model then view
The Working Group is competent to state what the user needs to understand, 
and 
what the user has available to help them understand (including all 
available) 
and should spell those out independent of presentation advice or 
conventions. 
Then, in a second layer, suggest what makes sense to present under stated 
nominal conditions, and how. 
Why? 
Under adaptive conditions, there is no way for the experts in this group 
to 
a_priori know how much the security infoset should be filtered, or for 
that 
matter what constitutes a "friendly message" corresponding to a "403: 
forbidden."