Re: Action-531: Try to tease apart aspects of the document which are UI Guidelines

That works for me, I"ll be on the call.


-- Maritza

	http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/



On Nov 7, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Mary Ellen Zurko/Westford/IBM wrote:

>
> Thanks Maritza. I think this is a substantial enough proposal that  
> we need to discuss it in a meeting. And we'll need to have an editor  
> there as well, as we need to get the proposal to a state that it can  
> be edited in. That would make it either a sequence of smaller items,  
> or you'd need to do an example of all the changes for folks to look  
> it over and get the idea.
>
> Shall we put this on the agenda of next week's meeting? If both you  
> and Anil can make it, then I'm game (since Thomas has already sent  
> regrets).
>
>           Mez
>
>
>
>
> From:	Maritza Johnson <maritzaj@cs.columbia.edu>
> To:	W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
> Date:	11/04/2008 01:13 PM
> Subject:	Action-531: Try to tease apart aspects of the document  
> which are UI Guidelines
> Sent by:	public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
>
>
>
>
>
> This action item addresses the comment "It was not written by user
> interface people and not for user interface people ... and by the time
> we get to the brief user interface guidance in sections 6,7 the way is
> lost." On the Oct 15th call we discussed some ways to fix the
> document: renaming the document, adding more text to the intro, giving
> UI readers more direction ...
>
> Stepping back and reading from his perspective I can see where he's
> coming from. The content is good but the presentation is confusing. I
> think we can improve readability by reordering the sections, renaming
> some of them, and explicitly indicating which sections are most
> relevant to UI people.
>
>
> The sections should be reordered to present the more general UI advice
> first. Section 5 addresses the application of a specific technology
> and it's presented as the first section of content. We have a lot to
> say about TLS, but I think it should be more toward the end of the
> document because it's so specific. We should also consider adding an
> intro paragraph to 5 about why it's the most worked example.
>
> Section 7 is has the most general UI advice and should be the first
> section of content after the overview and scoping/definitions. We
> should follow it up with is separate section for communicating error
> messages (error handling and signalling). That's one of our stronger
> sections and we should highlight its importance for the design of
> future interactions/interfaces. The remainder of the current section 6
> should follow.
>
> Section 8's name is too general. I think we're presenting this
> information as security lessons learned from  the mistakes/oversights
> of others. We don't have concrete advice on how/when each of them will
> come up but we want people to be aware of these issues when they're
> designing security indicators. I don't have a great suggestion for a
> new name but the entire document is asking them to consider security,
> so this name doesn't feel precise enough. Maybe - "Additional Security
> Threats to Consider".
>
> We should combine sections 3 and 4, both sections contain definitions
> that relate to the document as a whole and tell the reader what the
> document is focused on.
>
> The section could look something like:
> Working Definitions and Assumptions
>                 - Document Scope
>                                  - Product Classes (3.1)
>                                  - Interaction Model (most of 4.1)
>                                  - Content (rest of 4.1)
>                 - Terms and Definitions (4.2)
>                                  - Common UI Elements
>                 - Language Conventions
>                 - Levels of Conformance
>                 - Claiming Conformance
>
>
> The first sentence of the overview doesn't capture the intent of the
> document.  "This specification deals with the trust decisions that
> users must make online" -- aren't we dealing with the communication of
> security context information and suggesting ways for UI designers to
> support them in making informed security decisions? (I probably missed
> some long discussion about why we're using trust here instead of
> security.)
>
> Should we move the acknowledgements section to precede the reference
> section?
>
>
> -- Maritza
>
>                 http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/
>
>
>
>
>