Re: Proposed removing redundant checkpoint

At 08:55 AM 6/8/99 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Al Gilman wrote:
>> 
>> At the checkpoint level, I think it is better to separate installation from
>> repeat use.  You can have a common guideline about all user actions
>> required to install, use and maintain... (check EITAAC report for sample
>> language and cite at least in draft) <http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/eitaac/>.
>> 
>> In the dominant pattern of commercial practice the installer is a separate
>> program, not one of the functions of the program.  This colors public
>> perceptions, and we should talk in publicly-understood concepts where we
can.
>> 
>> This was a point where at least one vendor spokesperson drew a line: making
>> a distinction between repeat use where access support was obvious to them
>> and install transactions which are a "one time thing" and were perceived as
>> less meritorious of the necessary investment.  If we wish overcome that
>> perception, we will have to spell it out in two checks; not throw a blanket
>> over them.
>
>Hi Al,
>
>One way to avoid the blanket is to enumerate the important
>cases in the general checkpoint. Something like the 
>following:
>
>  Ensure that all functionalities offered by the user agent
>  interface are available through all supported input devices.
>  This includes installation, access to documentation, 
>  and software configuration.
>
>Then, to repeat the discussion in the rationale section and
>techniques document.
>

Don't get me wrong.  For my own use, I distinctly prefer a short (Occam's
razor) list of powerful principles that generate all the necessary cases.
I spend a lot of my life railing againsf over-atomization that destroys the
gestalt.

But this document has to communicate to lots of people and not just me.
The popular definition of a checklist item is something you can or would
normally observe by itself.  On balance I think it is better to show the
unity in a theory section and split these particular two in the checklist
for the reasons I stated.  This is just an indication of my individual
opinion on something I regard as a "better" not a "showstopper" distinction.

Al



> - Ian
>
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel/Fax:                     (212) 684-1814
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 1999 11:15:22 UTC