Mark CG-Drafts as unofficial

[marcoscaceres]

There is significant confusion about the status of CG-Drafts in the community. We should clarify that all CG-Drafts are unofficial, even if they display the W3C logo.

Cc @AmeliaBR

[marcoscaceres]

cc @plehegar

[wseltzer]

While it's true that no CG draft is a W3C Recommendation, they may have statuses in their communities (e.g. the Final Specification). Let's figure out how to correct the representation.

I'm also worried that a background image makes the text harder to read and use, and we do want CG reports to be useful!

[plehegar]

@marcoscaceres , I think it would help here if you can point us to one or more specific examples that you have in mind.

[AmeliaBR]

I personally don't think the “unofficial draft” watermark is essential for CG reports, since they may have official standing within the scope of that group.. And I agree with Wendy that it is outright inaccurate for CG final reports, which aren't always specifications. (It can also be a bit distracting when reading the documents.)

My original concern, expressed to Marcos & other WICG chairs, was with CG drafts that were using the “W3C Editor's Draft” banner. That can't be solved by changing the templates; it requires education about which template should be used when.

[marcoscaceres]

And I agree with Wendy that it is outright inaccurate for CG final reports, which aren't always specifications.

I also agree. This change is solely for CG-DRAFT, not for final reports.

I'm also worried that a background image makes the text harder to read and use, and we do want CG reports to be useful!

It’s used in all unofficial documents and I don’t think we have received any complaints about the watermark making text difficult to read? I’d be ok on making it a bit lighter.

About examples: any/all WICG drafts serve as examples. There is a lot of concern at Mozilla that the WICG drafts are being passed off as “official” w3c specifications.

[plehegar]

so, let's dive into one example and understands what needs to change:
https://wicg.github.io/badging/

It already says on it "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track.". We could make it more preeminent, remove the W3C logo, etc. At the end, I feel it would only make them uglier and not achieve much I fear. We could publish some kind of formal web page that explains the difference between the different statues used by W3C for all of its document. It could then be easily referenced by the public @large to quickly point out those differences when facing confusion. Would that help?

[AmeliaBR]

We could publish some kind of formal web page that explains the difference between the different statues used by W3C for all of its document. … Would that help?

If that document doesn't already exist, it definitely should! And a link to it from Status of this Document boilerplate wouldn't hurt.

But at the end of the day, that relies on people reading all the introductory text. The benefit of the watermark is that it is visible even if you jump in to the middle of a spec, following a link to a specific section. That said, the "W3C Community Group Draft Report" logo is also usually visible.

[plehegar]

We have part of the set of definitions at https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#maturity-levels , but it doesn't say anything about "CG Reports". For CG reports, the closest I was able to find was
https://www.w3.org/community/about/faq/#are-community-and-business-group-specifications-w3c-standards . So not satisfactory. I'll keep asking around and come up with a better answer.

For the watermark, it's usually visible as you mentioned, so no idea yet on how to improve that.

[marcoscaceres]

I feel we need a solution that conveys status “at a glance” (imagine a developer lands at a document after clicking on a link from Twitter). Having to read the SoTD section to understand something is a proposal is woefully inadequate. Having the unofficial watermark serves this purpose (and we can even keep the W3C logo).

[marcoscaceres]

Before I forget... this PR needs a little more work as the body is actually white so the watermark is not showing up. However, I'd still like to get consensus before we merge.

[marcoscaceres]

Final output is like:

And mobile:

[plehegar]

cc @koalie @deniak

[plehegar]

the change seems pretty straightforward and easy to me. @koalie @deniak , I propose to roll this out and let folks scream if it breaks something out there.
Heads-up to @yoavweiss @travisleithead , with their WICG co-chairs hats.

[wseltzer]

Any a11y review?

[koalie]

the change seems pretty straightforward and easy to me. @koalie @deniak , I propose to roll this out and let folks scream if it breaks something out there.

👍

cc: @dontcallmedom (as CG dominus maximus)

[dontcallmedom]

I'm a bit worried from an accessibility/usability perspective - the background is likely to make reading these drafts somewhat more unpleasant - could we use a side-banner (similar to but markedly different from the TR-status banner) instead of repeated background?

[travisleithead]

Re: There is significant confusion about the status of CG-Drafts in the community...

If it looks like a spec, reads like a spec, then we are going to have this confusion. This change might help a little, but even with the watermark, I imagine these will still be interpreted as specs that are "not quite finished". I don't know that there's a quick fix for this short of creating a new kind of document template and tools to produce a document that looks nothing like a spec, but is more structured than an explainer doc. And to be clear, I'm not proposing that.

I echo @dontcallmedom's concern about the readability. If my opinion counts for anything, I'd like to recommend the following:

• Keep the watermark, but have it only apply to the TOC panel when the screen width can accomodate it. That way it's still very big and obvious, but doesn't cover the primary content.
• For small screens, drop the watermark, and add an Editor's Draft-like left-margin text in a bold color (or re-use Editor's draft Red), or top-margin text, that is fixed positioned. Maybe also include a glyph too that will be attention grabbing (like ⚠).

[marcoscaceres]

About the readability aspect, I think we should deal with that separately: "unofficial" drafts already show watermark, so it could be addressed for those specs too (have people actually complained tho? maybe it's a non-issue).

@travisleithead, I like your suggestions, but they they would require quite a bit of work. I'm still hopeful we can start with this PR, and refine it over time. But at least this starts to clarify things.

[travisleithead]

I'm good for iterating. Just hope the initial feedback isn't too bad. I suspect the watermark will get a lot of feedback. Might check after the change to see how many documents start including a !important rule to override the style ...

[marcoscaceres]

I think most people will understand, and hopefully encourage them to move towards formal standardization or finalization of their reports.

[yoavweiss]

I'm supportive of general changes in that direction in order to reduce developer confusion.

I have no particular opinion on the aesthetics/usability of this change. I'll let others be the judge of that (or better yet, maybe we can A/B test it to see if it reduces confusion while not hurting usability too much?).

[marcoscaceres]

maybe we can A/B test it to see if it reduces confusion while not hurting usability too much?

I'm not sure we have the resources or time to do that - or short of running some user study etc. which seems a bit excessive. I say let's and iterate.

[marcoscaceres]

As this has came up again, I'd like to push forward with this.

[plehegar]

Deployed at https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/2016/cg-draft

[swickr]

This user finds the watermark significantly reduces readability for me. Perhaps it would be less of an interference if the number of repetitions per screenfull were reduced.

[marcoscaceres]

We could try just applying it to the .head of the doc? That would get the message across, and leave the abstract etc. untouched...

[plehegar]

I suggest waiting a few days to see if we get other similar comments before making a change

[travisleithead]

... though this might be awhile. Many specs (not ReSpec based) will need to re-publish in order for this new style to start applying, right? So the feedback may not come in all at once. E.g., I don't see it on background-sync for example...

[marcoscaceres]

Most (90%+) should show it. We try to make sure all WICG specs are using the CG-DRAFT status. We might have missed a few, but we should update those as we find them... and they can report back.

[plehegar]

@travisleithead I did notice that not all of the WICG specs are using the proper stylesheet link. background-sync doesn't for example. Imho, best would be to ask them to update the draft with
<link href="https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/2016/cg-draft" rel="stylesheet">
(or use whatever tool magic to make it so)

[plehegar]

and we can wait as long as needed to get the feedback. I just recommend not changing the style sheet every week :)

[vasilvv]

This makes the drafts really hard to read. Could you change it to something like background-repeat: repeat-x?

[dontcallmedom]

I think there has been enough feedback on readability before, at and after the launch of the new style that it should be fixed rapidly now…

[plehegar]

@marcoscaceres , want to propose a patch ?

[marcoscaceres]

Yep, will send something up.

[marcoscaceres]

Ok, sent #183

Only repeats across the head of the document ... hopefully we all agree it is "just right" in terms of annoying and gets the message across :)

[marcoscaceres]

Sample

Mobile:

(we still gotta fix the overlapping CG logo bug...)

[riannella]

I think the watermark incorrectly portrays the Draft Report as an "unofficial" Community Group Report.
When, in reality, the report is an "official" draft report of the Community Group (otherwise it would not exist!)
(The CG approved its development...)

It should be removed for this reason (alone) - as well as the unreadability of the text when you scroll.

[dontcallmedom]

I thought we had landed to a place where the watermark would only serve as background to the document's head, but I see it remains fixed when scrolling, which I agree doesn't help with readability.

Could the watermark be replaced with a banner similar to the one used for outdated version, or in bikeshed warnings (à la https://immersive-web.github.io/webxr-hand-input/)? This would allow to have a short heading (e.g. "not a standards-track document", and a longer collapsible explanation of what a CG report is).

paging @plehegar since that's congruent with explorations he's leading on help to distinguish the spectrum of standard-iness of our documents

(this should probably be moved to an issue rather than a discussion on a closed pull request at this point too)