Re: feedback loops

+1 to concerns about the term,  but as Jf mentioned in broad terms we mean 'instant in context feedback'. 

I'm not wedded to the term we finally use,  as long as we are on the same page about what we mean. I think we are or nearly are. 

My use of the term comes from some understanding of cognitive psychology.  The correct technical term is pre-attentive processing,  I believe,  but don't really want to see that used in our spec. 

To my mind, the intention is to avoid the Gulf of evaluation also. 

HTH 

Josh 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental model 

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/ff_feedbackloop/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_evaluation

Sent from TypeApp



On 31 Aug 2016, 20:19, at 20:19, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>+1 to Greg
>
>I think we were using the term much more loosely on the call, as in
>"this
>is intended to provide feedback (a.k.a. feedback loop) to the end
>user",
>within the context of action/reaction (i.e. you perform an action, and
>get
>visual confirmation of that activity).
>
>JF
>
>On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Greg Lowney
><gcl-0039@access-research.org>
>wrote:
>
>> The term loop didn't actually appear anywhere in the draft SC, but I
>agree
>> with your concern: I would reserve the term "feedback loop" for
>iterative
>> processes involving multiple passes where each affects the next. I
>wouldn't
>> use it for simple cases of a single response to a single input, such
>as
>> those discussed in the proposal.
>>
>>     Greg
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: feedback loops
>> From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
>> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> Cc: "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3.Org>
>> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> Date: 8/31/2016 5:12 AM
>>
>> Ok, thanks for the clarification
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:19:21 +0300 Andrew
>Kirkpatrick<akirkpat@adobe.
>> com> <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote ----
>>
>> BCC’ing the Interest Group list as this is a question to the WCAG
>group.
>>
>> I don’t believe that there was any confusion about feedback in the
>> proposal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> AWK
>>
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>> Adobe
>>
>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>>
>> From: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 23:15
>> To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Subject: feedback loops
>> Resent-From: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 23:15
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I was reading the minuets for this weeks call relating to feedback SC
>> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/rapid-and-
>> direct-feedback.html
>>
>> We had discussed on the coga list  Joshes suggestion to use the term
>> feedback loops but we had found it very confusing, as in the
>engineering
>> world a feedback loop is something very different to giving the user
>> feedback about whether a task was completed successfully.
>>
>> Did WCAG think we were referring to engineering feedback loops or did
>the
>> group understand that we meant letting the user know if a task was
>> completed successfully?
>>
>> The minuets could be read either way.
>>
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Lisa Seeman
>>
>> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>John Foliot
>Principal Accessibility Strategist
>Deque Systems Inc.
>john.foliot@deque.com
>
>Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion