Re: Definition of view as agreed by a majority in yesterday's AGWG call - strong objection

On 02/07/2025 08:58, Detlev Fischer wrote:
...
> *
> An interface with a specific layout. If the layout includes at least one 
> component that is used to change the content within the layout, that is 
> part of the same view.*
> 
> That creates a big practical problem. In the evaluation of mobile apps, 
> it should be possible to allocate conformance errors to particular 
> views / screens, i.e. where they occur, regardless of whether these 
> views share elements like a navigation bar with other views. If we 
> seriously say: if there is any element (such as such a nav bar) that all 
> screens that share, then all these screens are lumped together in the 
> same view, we end up amassing a broad range of issues under a single 
> view, having to spell out in reporting to which screen of that monstrous 
> view an issue belongs. That is not helpful. And if this turn leads to 
> defining individual screens as components, i.e. components then being 
> the actual units that are evaluated, you wonder what the aggregate of 
> "view" is then good for. The only advantage would be to focus on the 
> element(s) shared by all screens under that concept of a view (say, the 
> navigation bar) but that I believe is not intended in the current 
> definition.

I share the concern that if *that* is what that proposed definition aims 
to do, it becomes unwieldy and counter-intuitive.

Just taking the example of a "standard" mobile-like web app/SPA with a 
standard set of navigation buttons at the bottom of the screen - home, 
search, a-z, settings. Are we saying that all the different sections now 
fall under the same "view"? That would make it just as pointless as the 
old definition of "web page".

-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

* https://www.splintered.co.uk/
* https://github.com/patrickhlauke
* https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
* https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2025 08:53:05 UTC