Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

Thanks John. Yeah, I totally get that - and James's point is really good 
but feel that 'it relates to the user' is kinda germane to the point of 
the whole SC - and omitting it from the SC text and expanding on that 
fact in the Understanding doc, I think - makes it clearer for 
devs/authors to parse.

What you outline below, could be written up as an exception etc. You 
could say, what if a user is inputting data about someone else for 
example? They are the user (of the form) but are using the form (booking 
a flight etc) for someone else?

Anyway, I can live the reference to the 'directly to the user' however 
but couldn't help but thinking that was a little ambiguous.



John Foliot wrote:
> This does not address the concern brought forward by James. Imagine if 
> you will an online HR document that collects names and addresses: we 
> don't want each"line" of name and address auto-populated with the same 
> data; the form is actually looking for multiple names (and in some 
> instances those names would not likely include the actual name of the 
> end-user data-entry clerk), so tying these back to the individual 
> affected user is critical. That said, happy for further wordsmithing 
> towards brevity and clarity.

Joshue O Connor
Director |

Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 20:44:45 UTC