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

Which one(s) do you believe Page Info Summary maps to,Tim?

My favorite potential use case of Page Info Summary is, I think, not in 
wsc-usecases, though is related to the "helping others" type scenarios 
being discussed in ISSUE-83. My mother follows a link in a mail message, 
which takes her somewhere, and she's confused. Is it where she thought it 
would be? She calls me. I ask her questions. If it's a PII Editor Bar or 
TBM world, I can ask her questions just about what she sees or what she 
wants to do. But if it's a "display only" scenario (or her PII has 
changed, or it's not a trusted site to begin with), I (may) need more 
information, and would ask her about Page Info Summary. 

          Mez







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

Timothy Hahn 
to:
public-wsc-wg
08/21/2007 08:09 AM


Sent by:
public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org








Hi all, 

I prefer to leave it in. 

I believe that Page Info Summary is in line with our Goal (2.3) of 
"Consistent presentation of security information".  Further, while one 
reading of our non-goal (3.1) "Presentation of all security information" 
might at first appear to cause Page Info Summary to be considered out of 
scope, I recall that we placed emphasis on the word "all" in this 
non-goal, so as not to be presumptuous that we were all-knowing or would 
ever be so.  Also, in the description of that non-goal (3.1), we state 
that our recommendations should map to use cases.  I believe Page Info 
Summary does map to a number of our use cases. 

Regards, 
Tim Hahn
IBM Distinguished Engineer

Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
fax: 919.224.2530



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: 
08/21/2007 05:57 AM 
Subject: 
RE: straw poll: Is page info summary a non-Goal?





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