- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:56:58 +0200
- To: WSC WG public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
I've taken another look at the SOTD and what it should say about the relationship between wsc-ui and the use case note. In the last meeting, we had discussed the following text: > <Mez> * We do not provide recommendations to web site authors on web > site content. > > <Mez> * We do not address sections 9.1.2 Visually extending the > chrome" and 9.2.7 "Information bar (aka: notification bar)". > > <Mez> * We do not provide recommendations for user education about web > security indicators. This impacts the uses cases described under > section 9.3 "Poor user understanding of chrome". I have turned that into the following piece of text for the SOTD, also addressing the testing piece: > To frame its development of this specification, the Working Group > had previously published a use case note [WSC-USECASES]. This > specification addresses most of the use cases and issues documented > in that note by documenting best existing practice, with the > following exceptions: > > • This specification does not include advice for web site authors. > • This specification does not provide advice to address the issue > explained in sections 9.1.2 Visually extending the chrome and9.2.7 > Information bar (aka: notification bar). > Additionally, section 10.4 Implementation and testing of [WSC- > USECASES] articulated an expectation that the recommendations in > this specification would be subject to usability testing, at least > on a lo-fi level, and that such testing would form part of the > Candidate Recommendation exit criteria. Resources available to the > Working Group at this point will not permit the group to conduct > extensive usability testing. At the same time, the focus of this > specification has shifted toward documenting best existing practice. > > Therefore, the Candidate Recommendation exit criteria for this > specification @@. > Substantive differences: 1. I've scrapped the piece about education -- that's a WG activity, not something that belongs into the spec, so no point in mentioning it in the SOTD. 2. I've thrown some text about the Candidate Rec exit criteria in here. I don't remember if we had text for these articulated anywhere, hence the @@ placeholder for the moment. We'll need to agree on what precisely these exit criteria should be. All of this is checked into the latest editor's draft: > Web Security Context: User Interface Guidelines > Editor's Draft 13 July 2009 > $Revision: 1.318 $ $Date: 2009/07/13 13:53:10 $ http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 13:57:11 UTC