RE: Faking the infobar

I too think so. And it is my opinion that it is, so far, the expressed 
sentiment of the group. So I think that it's a good candidate for our rec 
track document. 






RE: Faking the infobar

michael.mccormick 
to:
staikos, public-wsc-wg
07/16/2007 07:30 PM


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








SCIs outside the chrome area are definitely bad.  I would hope that's
something we can all agree upon?

Conversely, in the content area, things that look similar to SCIs are
also bad.  A common example of this would be banks who place a padlock
image on their home pages.

Any opinions expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily
represent Wells Fargo.  :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of George Staikos
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 1:42 PM
To: W3 Work Group
Subject: Re: Faking the infobar



On 17-Jul-07, at 1:59 AM, George Staikos wrote:

>
>
> On 17-Jul-07, at 1:56 AM, Mike Beltzner wrote:
>
>> On 16-Jul-07, at 1:38 PM, George Staikos wrote:
>>
>>> I was a bit hesitant about this because I understand that some are 
>>> strongly opposed to this view.
>>
>> Then the right way to do things would be to raise this as a question 
>> and find out if our group can come to a consensus. You're seeming 
>> surprisingly passive-aggressive at the moment! :)
>
>    I was kind of expecting more comments when I posted that. :-)  I 
> was also in transit at the airport so writing more was not an option.

> Consider the issue to be raised as a question.  Should we declare that

> all UI indicators in the chrome are bad as they lead the user to start

> to trust such indicators in possibly all circumstances?

   Of course that was supposed to say "outside the chrome" or "in the
content region".

--
George Staikos
KDE Developer                                                            
http://www.kde.org/
Staikos Computing Services Inc.                          
http://www.staikos.net/