- From: Maritza Johnson <maritzaj@cs.columbia.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:43:43 -0500
- To: Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com, W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>, Mary Ellen Zurko <mzurko@us.ibm.com>
- Message-Id: <8A61D49C-68EB-4533-B4BB-4624F33A8342@cs.columbia.edu>
Hi Mez, I don't know if you saw my response the other day -- I'll be on the call so you can put it on tomorrow's agenda. -- Maritza http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/ On Nov 8, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Maritza Johnson wrote: > 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/ >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 15:44:41 UTC