ACTION-617: SOTD text about match to usecase note

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