Re: ISSUE-59: challenge and recover are essential; one presentation fits all -NOT (pubic comment)

Good advice, though I think we were thinking more along  the lines of 
"dont' go to that web site" or "use the foo command if you want to allow 
dancing pigs to trash your hard drive", not "move the mouse here" syntax 
level messages. 

I'd like to leave this one open through the recommendations phase. 

          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 08:24 AM
Please respond to
Web Security Context WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>


To
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
cc

Subject
ISSUE-59: challenge and recover are essential; one presentation fits all 
-NOT (pubic comment)








ISSUE-59: challenge and recover are essential; one presentation fits all 
-NOT (pubic comment)

http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/Group/track/issues/59

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

challenge and recover are essential; one presentation fits all -NOT 
where it says, in 10.1.7 Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from 
errors
   Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes),
   precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a
   solution 
please consider
model the system-driven forward path of the browse dialog and exception- 
and 
user-initiated digressions in UML/SCXML.  Document recovery path options 
in 
the model.  Then slice and style what you will for stated nominal 
conditions.
Why? 
You simply can't do all those things at once for the breadth of the 
disabled 
population.  The literal codes of the protocol messages are the only way 
to be 
fully precise.  Plain language is dependent on the language skills of the 
user.   What the author thinks is a constructive suggestion as to a 
resolution 
is frequently a bad choice when operating through an adapted delivery 
context.  The full model needs to be documented and shared with AT so that 

appropriate decisions can be made about these things.  Yes, the author 
(and 
WG) *should* propose what they *think* is good presentation and recovery 
paths.  OTOH they need to know that they will be wrong about these 
decisions 
for some delivery contexts and that more user-centered, use-initiative, 
AT-
knowlege-based decisions must be enabled in the implementing protocols.