Re: straw poll: Is page info summary a non-Goal?

+1

On 2007-08-21 05:56:21 -0400, Dan Schutzer wrote:
> From: Dan Schutzer <dan.schutzer@fstc.org>
> To: 'Johnathan Nightingale' <johnath@mozilla.com>,
> 	"'Close, Tyler J.'" <tyler.close@hp.com>
> Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:56:21 -0400
> Subject: RE: straw poll: Is page info summary a non-Goal?
> List-Id: <public-wsc-wg.w3.org>
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/021501c7e3d9$8826c8c0$6500a8c0@dschutzer
> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5
> 
> 
> I'd leave it in
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Johnathan Nightingale
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 3:29 PM
> To: Close, Tyler J.
> Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: straw poll: Is page info summary a non-Goal?
> 
> 
> I hate to kill a rec that a) improves upon existing UI and b) stands  
> a strong chance of actual implementation, strictly on the basis of  
> time (I think the scope argument is weak), but I appreciate that I  
> wasn't present for the meeting in which this was discussed.
> 
> If we feel that time trumps any perceived gain, and that we should be  
> restricted to threat-response recommendations only, so be it, but the  
> arguments that we're "spending too much time" on it are surprising to  
> me, since it feels like it's not a highly contentious question, and  
> not likely to occupy a lot of our time.
> 
> My own vote would be to leave it in, but I would support someone who  
> said we might want to consider recs in order of perceived urgency, if  
> we're worried about getting certain ones in ahead of time crunches.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> J
> 
> 
> On 15-Aug-07, at 1:58 PM, Close, Tyler J. wrote:
> 
> >
> > Given the tight timeline for our Working Group, I think it is crucial
> > that we prioritize our efforts around achieving our primary goals.
> > Making efficient use of our time is even more important for this WG,
> > given the likelihood that we may need to iterate through the
> > recommendation -> testing cycle.
> >
> > To focus our efforts on our primary goals, I propose that we
> > de-emphasize work on the page info summary
> > <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/ 
> > rewrite.html#pageinfosummary>. In
> > particular, I propose that this work become a Note, similar to the
> > Threat Trees Note, and not be included in our FPWD Recommendations.
> > We'll have a straw poll in our next telecon on this question.
> >
> > I think the page info summary is a non-Goal, as specified by  
> > section 3.1
> > of our Note
> > <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/note/Overview.html#completeness>.
> > Additionally, our Note states in many places that: "This Working Group
> > is chartered to recommend user interfaces that help users make trust
> > decisions on the Web." The user studies this WG has considered all  
> > show
> > almost non-existent use of the page info summary. In general, users
> > don't go digging for additional security information when engaged in a
> > web browsing activity. Providing more or better options for digging
> > won't help users make trust decisions. Such information may be of  
> > use to
> > expert users, but providing recommendations for the display of this
> > information is not the job of this WG. Considering such recommendation
> > proposals also requires solving difficult problems like display on
> > non-desktop browser user-agents, such as smart phones, widgets,  
> > etc. We
> > simply don't have time to address these issues in a meaningful way,  
> > and
> > doing so takes time away from working on our primary goals.
> >
> > --Tyler
> >
> 
> ---
> Johnathan Nightingale
> Human Shield
> johnath@mozilla.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 09:59:01 UTC