- From: Jeff Sayre <jeff@sayremedia.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:15:01 -0700
- To: "Alexandre Passant" <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Cc: "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "WebID XG" <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
> Hi Jeff, all, > > Agreed with all your statements, but in that case, imo, there should be > more focus on the USP of WebID, and less on the technical side. > *What* can WebID offer, and *why* that's needed, rather than *how* (i.e. > expanding the section 2, and maybe shortening 3) > > m2c > > Alex. > Alex - That is an interesting point. We do need to strike a balance between technical presentation and user-focused benefits. I'm not too sure how that is best achieved in our position paper, but I thought that we had done a decent job. Remember, our primary audience is browser vendors. I do realize that there will be more than just browser vendors in attendance, but it is the browser vendors we need to hook with the virtues of WebID. We need them to push critical changes to their browser code, changes that will enable WebID to become a viable protocol for mass adoption. Thus, it seemed the technical overview was key to piquing their interest. Perhaps that is not an accurate assumption. Again, we can and will cover more than technical details in our presentation. So, it really boils down to whether the position paper does a sufficient job of getting their attention. What do others think? Jeff
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 18:15:30 UTC