Re: "Chrome"

I like Thomas's suggestion of "user agent" instead of browser or 
application and would propose amending my two definitions below to use 
user agent.  The two definitions become:

user agent UI elements:  the user interface elements specified by the 
browser implementor
markup UI elements:  the user interface elements specified by the web page

--Brad

Brad Porter wrote:
> In your responses to my statements, I think you used your own 
> definition of the terms "window chrome" and "browser-controlled 
> presentation elements" rather than those that I provided.  I agree 
> that without reading the definitions, the phrases "window chrome" and 
> "browser-controlled presentation elements" are going to mean different 
> things to different people.  The whole point of defining them was to 
> clarify what are obviously loaded terms so we can use them 
> consistently, or as a starting point for new/different definitions. 
>
> Here are my definitions.
>> window chrome -- visual elements used by Desktop browsers or the OS 
>> window manager to surround the web page
>> browser-controlled presentation elements -- any user interface 
>> presentation controlled explicitly by the browser and not under 
>> direct web page control
> You did provide some new definitions, which are very helpful. 
>> chrome  : the widgets and UI elements provided by the application
>> content : content, widgets and UI elements provided by the web page
> I'm happy to work with either set of definitions.  Here are my 
> comments on the definitions you provided.
>
>    1. I would recommend that "widgets" is not a precise enough word
>       and is likely redundant
>    2. I think the concepts apply well to visual, voice, mobile web
>       browsing environments, and browsing functionality embedded in
>       other systems, but the term "application" breaks that.  That and
>       the phrase "web application" has many meanings.  I would
>       recommend we strike the word "application".
>    3. I also think the word "chrome" implies visual rendering and it
>       would be ideal to use a different word for it if we do not
>       intend for it to use it explicitly for visual elements.
>    4. I think the word "provided" needs to be a stronger verb.
>    5. I think the word content is already too overloaded and some
>       precision is helpful... particularly given you defined "content"
>       using the word "content".  :-)
>
> So I would recommend reworking your definitions as follows:
>
> Change "chrome  : the widgets and UI elements provided by the 
> application" to
> "browser UI elements:  the user interface elements specified by the 
> browser implementor"
>
> Change "content : content, widgets and UI elements provided by the web 
> page" to
> "markup UI elements:  the user interface elements specified by the web 
> page"
>
> --Brad
>
> Mike Beltzner wrote:
>> On 12-Feb-07, at 9:58 PM, Brad Porter wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Beltzner wrote:
>>>> It's not at all the case that the chrome populated with content 
>>>> from web pages isn't under the browser's control. The browser is 
>>>> the application that fetched it and placed it there, and the 
>>>> application can choose not to, or choose only to do so according to 
>>>> specific rules, etc.
>>
>>> Just to clarify definitions here, you're now using the term 
>>> "application" to refer to the Firefox or IE as distinct from the web 
>>> page?  We sometimes use "application" to refer to a web site, so I 
>>> wanted to clarify.
>>
>> Yes, I am. Good to clarify, since that's really the crux of what 
>> we're talking about here. "Chrome" might be the wrong word entirely, 
>> really, since the skin of the UI elements on a web application would 
>> be considered that web application's "chrome". :)
>>
>>>> I think the real issue here is the potential for confusion about 
>>>> the source of the content. That the content appears inline with 
>>>> what users are used to thinking of as chrome -- that is to say, UI 
>>>> elements from an application which they have chosen to run -- often 
>>>> makes users assume that the content is being provided by the 
>>>> application, not the web page.
>>
>>> Again, I assume application refers to an OS application?
>>> You have provided yet another definition of "chrome" more in line 
>>> with the concrete definition of window chrome and separate from the 
>>> semantic concept of chrome.
>>> Do we think the definitions I suggested earlier are insufficient or 
>>> need to change in some way, or can they map clearly to what you're 
>>> describing?
>>
>> I think the definitions are fine, but I don't know if they help us 
>> accomplish the difference we're trying to draw "window chrome" (or 
>> "browser chrome", I'm fine with either) refers to the controls that 
>> the browser draws in its protected context. 
> This is yet another definition for "window chrome" separate from the 
> definition I provided.  Please propose an very crisp alternative 
> definition if you don't like the ones I provided.
>> Sometimes the browser might draw widgets (ie: favicons) using 
>> information that is dynamic and drawn from the web page content -- 
>> those widgets are still "window chrome", though.
>>
>>>> All elements of chrome are under browser control. It's just that 
>>>> the browser populates some of those elements from a website, which 
>>>> may not be as trusted (by the user) as the browser.
>>
>>> Effectively, for certain parts of the "window chrome" the browser 
>>> has decided to cede control of those pixels to the content.  
>>> Certainly, the entity which implements the browser application may 
>>> use any pixel however they like, but if the application chooses to 
>>> relegate the definition of those pixels to the content, then it is 
>>> no longer a "browser-controlled presentation element" but instead it 
>>> is a "content-controlled presentation element".
>>
>> I disagree. The browser controls it. It can turn it on, turn it off, 
>> replace it with something else, etc. "Content-controlled" implies 
>> that the browser is not at all in control of the content, which is 
>> entirely false.
>>
>>> Better terminology or definitions are welcome?
>>
>> The crux of the issue is that users will erroneously assume that web 
>> page content inlined in the "window chrome" is being generated by the 
>> browser instead of merely drawn from the webpage. They therefore 
>> imbue that content with the same amount of trust that they have for 
>> their browser, which ends up being potentially dangerous.
>>
>> I think the definitions we want to use are:
>>
>> "chrome"  : the widgets and UI elements provided by the application
>> "content" : content, widgets and UI elements provided by the web page
>>
>> We want to then illustrate what parts of chrome are dynamically 
>> populated with content, such as the content area (the main browsing 
>> pane in which web pages reside), favicons, etc.
>>
>> cheers,
>> mike
>>
>>>> I think what we want to do is catalog the list of places where 
>>>> chrome is populated by web page content and then see if we can find 
>>>> better ways of expressing that concept.
>>
>>> That presumes we think making the "window chrome" the place to 
>>> express security context information is the right solution.  I'm 
>>> personally not sure the "window chrome" is the best place for that.  
>>> Perhaps the user should look elsewhere.
>>>
>>> --Brad
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> On 12-Feb-07, at 5:58 PM, Brad Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree that there are lots of sources for "semantic chrome" 
>>>>> and today there's no way to know which presentation elements are 
>>>>> browser-controlled vs which aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the browser is going to say anything about the site at all, 
>>>>> then the user needs to have some way of establishing trust with 
>>>>> the browser.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consequently, I think establishing trust between 
>>>>> user->browser-controlled-presentation-elements for those 
>>>>> presentation elements which make statements about a web site is a 
>>>>> prerequisite to pretty much any solution we come up with and 
>>>>> therefore must be in scope.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Brad
>>>>>
>>>>> michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com wrote:
>>>>>> I like the distinction between "window chrome" and "semantic 
>>>>>> chrome".  But I think there's a whole spectrum of semantic chrome 
>>>>>> sources.  From most to least trusted, all the following can 
>>>>>> produce such chrome: OS > base browser > TTP browser plug-in > 
>>>>>> TTP script/applet/control > unintentionally activated 
>>>>>> script/applet/control > malware emulating the OS or browser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example all the things I just listed can generate pop-up 
>>>>>> dialogs.  Ideally there's needs to be some contextual information 
>>>>>> in the pop-up chrome that tells me its source or gives me 
>>>>>> contextual cues about the source's trustworthiness.  In scope or 
>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org 
>>>>>> [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Brad Porter
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:24 AM
>>>>>> To: Hal Lockhart
>>>>>> Cc: Mike Beltzner; Bob Pinheiro; Mary Ellen Zurko; 
>>>>>> public-wsc-wg@w3.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: "Chrome"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your separation between semantic chrome and the desktop visual 
>>>>>> chrome is genius.  Given that, I propose two phrases with 
>>>>>> definitions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> window chrome -- visual elements used by Desktop browsers or the 
>>>>>> OS window manager to surround the web page
>>>>>>
>>>>>> browser-controlled presentation elements -- any user interface 
>>>>>> presentation controlled explicitly by the browser and not under 
>>>>>> direct web page control
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Brad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hal Lockhart wrote:
>>>>>>> The key point I tried to make at the F2F was that the 
>>>>>>> definitions that most of us would like to use for Chrome 
>>>>>>> represent the way we wish browsers work or hope they will work 
>>>>>>> in future. For example, a strict separation between what the 
>>>>>>> application can control and what the browser controls seems 
>>>>>>> desirable to most of us, but does not currently exist, as 
>>>>>>> reported by many sources. The point of this comment is that 
>>>>>>> first of all, we need to make this clear in our glossary, so as 
>>>>>>> to avoid arguments about current violations. Also in evaluating 
>>>>>>> potential definitions, we need to be aware of the present/future 
>>>>>>> distinction. Looking at the thread below, I believe MEZ and Bob 
>>>>>>> have proposed future definitions, whereas the two that Mike 
>>>>>>> found are present definitions. I see the choice as being between 
>>>>>>> defining Chrome in purely graphical terms (stuff around the edge 
>>>>>>> of the screen) or semantically (stuff from browser not web 
>>>>>>> site).  Hal
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Mike Beltzner Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 
>>>>>>>> 10:13 AM To: Bob Pinheiro Cc: Mary Ellen Zurko; 
>>>>>>>> public-wsc-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: "Chrome" A couple of 
>>>>>>>> definitions I found ..: "The interface elements of a browser, 
>>>>>>>> or any other program, that create the frame around the window 
>>>>>>>> that displays pages." (cite: 
>>>>>>>> http://www.chriscassell.net/classes/2001/winter/gdt150/ 
>>>>>>>> handouts/vocabulary.html) "The visible graphical interface 
>>>>>>>> features of an application are sometimes referred to as 
>>>>>>>> "chrome". They include graphical elements (widgets) that may be 
>>>>>>>> used to interact with the program. Common widgets are: windows, 
>>>>>>>> buttons, menus, and scroll bars. Larger widgets, such as 
>>>>>>>> windows, usually provide a frame or container for the main 
>>>>>>>> presentation content such as a web page, email message or 
>>>>>>>> drawing. Smaller ones usually act as a user-input tool." (cite:
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface_chrome#GUI_design)
>>>>>>>> I think the salient detail is that chrome is what allows the 
>>>>>>>> user to interact with the browser alone from interacting with 
>>>>>>>> the web content. Bob's point about the display of chrome being 
>>>>>>>> restricted to the browser is also good to keep in mind, and 
>>>>>>>> relevant for our
>>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>>>> cheers, mike On 12-Feb-07, at 9:44 AM, Bob Pinheiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I thought the key distinction with regard to "chrome" is that 
>>>>>>>>> there are certain areas of the browser window that are solely 
>>>>>>>>> under the control of the browser, and not the website being 
>>>>>>>>> displayed. So anything displayed in the "chrome" can be 
>>>>>>>>> assumed to be coming from the browser itself, and not the 
>>>>>>>>> website. However, if some browsers have areas where both the 
>>>>>>>>> browser and the website can communicate information, that 
>>>>>>>>> seems to muddy the issue. Maybe such areas should have a 
>>>>>>>>> different name, reserving "chrome" for those areas where only 
>>>>>>>>> the browser can communicate to the user. At 08:16 AM 
>>>>>>>>> 2/12/2007, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> During our f2f, the discussion about "chrome - what is it" 
>>>>>>>>>> came up again. The discussion was part of going over "Poorly 
>>>>>>>>>> defined role for chrome". It was a divergence at the time, so 
>>>>>>>>>> we decided to take the discussion to the list. See: 
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-wsc-minutes.html "what is 
>>>>>>>>>> chrome? diaglog boxes should be included" We'll need the 
>>>>>>>>>> definition of Chrome for the Glossary that Tim is pulling 
>>>>>>>>>> together as well. What I mean to mean by Chrome are the parts 
>>>>>>>>>> of the window that include information that the User 
>>>>>>>>>> agent/Browser is trying to communicate to the user, vs the 
>>>>>>>>>> parts where the browser is (expected to) faithfully represent 
>>>>>>>>>> what the web site/page is trying to communicate to the user. 
>>>>>>>>>> Some areas in some browsers currently contain both (for 
>>>>>>>>>> example, the title area including both the HTML title and 
>>>>>>>>>> browser identity information). Anyone else have a better 
>>>>>>>>>> definition? I also remember people getting fixated on the 
>>>>>>>>>> word. If the word itself is getting in the way of a concept 
>>>>>>>>>> we consider important, then we can start using some other 
>>>>>>>>>> word which we can all agree on. So this might instead be an 
>>>>>>>>>> exercise where we agree on the concept first, then agree on 
>>>>>>>>>> the word we'll use. [ACTION-132 - Start discussion on mailing 
>>>>>>>>>> list to draw chrome items out and get analysis completed [on 
>>>>>>>>>> Mary Ellen Zurko - due 2007-02-13].] Mez Mary Ellen Zurko, 
>>>>>>>>>> STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office (t/l 333-6389) Lotus/WPLC Security 
>>>>>>>>>> Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect
>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------- Bob Pinheiro FSTC 
>>>>>>>>> Project Management Bob.Pinheiro@FSTC.org 1 908-654-1939
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>