Re: FW: ISSUE-83: Scenario updates (for certain abilities andfunctional limitations)

On 2007-08-30 05:31:09 -0400, Dan Schutzer wrote:

> I think Use Case 2 is fine

My point was that I disagree with this, since it suggests we are
going to address generic child protection technologies -- which is
clearly far out of our scope.  Can you suggest a use case that
exposes the different capabilities, yet avoids the misunderstanding
that we're dealing with child protection in general?

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






> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Roessler
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:32 PM
> To: Dan Schutzer
> Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FW: ISSUE-83: Scenario updates (for certain abilities
> andfunctional limitations)
> 
> 
> On 2007-08-20 06:20:15 -0400, Dan Schutzer wrote:
> 
> > Another shot at two use cases. I will have another one to add by
> > end of day
> 
> Has anything happened to that from your side?
> 
> Also, I had written:
> 
> > Also, I still think we should stay away from child protection use
> > cases, meaning I'd strike the second of these use cases.  If we are
> > specifically after usability for children (where I think this
> > started from), then I think that should be said explicitly.
> 
> ... with regad to this use case:
> 
> >> Use Case 2: Mary?s eight year old daughter has asked to use the
> >> home PC to
> 
> >> access the Internet. Mary gives her daughter access to her
> >> computer. Mary trusts her daughter, but is concerned that she
> >> might inadvertently be directed to sites with inappropriate
> >> adult content and not be mature enough to handle it. How can
> >> the browser warn Mary?s daughter when she tries to access a web
> >> site with inappropriate content?
> 
> Any comments on this?
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:00:51 UTC