Re: Proposed deletion of checkpoint on spawning windows

Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> The basic requirement is that the user must be able to maintain control of
> the composite process. 

The proposal was to push control of spawned windows (5.11
of [1]) to checkpoint 10.1: 

   10.1 Provide information about document and 
        viewport changes (to users and through
        programming interfaces).

If I understand, this doesn't satify your basic requirement 
since it only involves notification (and not decision-making).

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT-19990809/

> People's recognition memory far exceeds their recall memory.

Yes, I believe I've heard that somewhere, but I can't
remember where... <wink>

[snip]

> systematic means for user supervision of process
> sprawl to manage complexity must be incorporated throughout as 
> built-in principles of operation.

This suggests to me a guideline about user control of "processes"
that would include checkpoints about script execution, window
changes, form submission, etc. I'm afraid to go there. Do you have
any creative suggestions for how to stop short of a comprehensive
plan for managing process sprawl and cover the 5.11? (Yes,
I'm asking for a proposal.)

 - Ian

P.S. I paraphrase you here: "If you won't be able to undo a change
with the back button, you should be prompted for the change." That
is interesting and I wonder how we might integrate it into the
guidelines.







Received on Friday, 27 August 1999 19:55:36 UTC