Re: Comments to UA Guidelines

Some more comments!

  Marja

At 11:00 PM 11/11/98 +1100, you wrote:
>Comment interpersed - look for CMcCN: and MRK:
>
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Marja-Riitta Koivunen wrote:
>> page 6
>> 
>> ... user agents should avoid displacing the viewport away from the user's
>> point of regard as this can disorient users.
>> 
>> !!Don't understand. Isn't the viewport or several viewports always there?
>CMcCN:
>The point is that if the viewport is going to be suddebly moved (for 
>example by following a link) the user should be notified. I think that 
>the treatment of this is not quite sufficient, since moving the viewport 
>by following a link is a natural consequence, and should be expected. 
>Moving it becuase of a pop-up window, auto-refresh which redirects after 
>some arbitrary time, and such-like are problems.
>
MRK:
For me it is still difficult to understand the wording. Does this mean that
we should avoid displacing the content of a viewport or automatically
generating multiple viewports without a warning when it is not initiated by
the user (normally with activities in the users' point of regard or user
defined settings in the user agent)?

>MRK:
>> 
>> For paper it is difficult to indentify the point of regard more precisely
>> than the entire page. ...
>> 
>> !!What about the insertion point? I thought that was point of regard also?
>CMcCN:
>The Insertion point may or may not be in the point of regard. Imagine 
>using MSWord - the insertion point can be placed somehwere, and then tyhe 
>user can scroll through teh document, so that the insertyion pointis not 
>in the current point of regard (where that is defined as the visible part 
>of the document).
MRK:
I thought the point of regard is still valid even though it might be out of
sight. For instance if I select a sentence and scroll it away from sight I'm
able to replace it with something else. However, in that case I really would
like to return to the place where I can see the point of regard (and this is
actually how MS Word does it).

I guess the paper really means a piece of paper, not an electronic document
paper as I first thought. But is that important as we deal with electronic
documents?

Received on Wednesday, 11 November 1998 13:17:13 UTC