Intro: add paragraph about balancing principles, for #62 #64
Conversation
index.html
Outdated
| Thus in applying these principles, there are benefits and tradeoffs | ||
| that may need to be carefully balanced. When faced with principles | ||
| which appear to be in conflict with one another, | ||
| it is important to consider the context in which a particular technology | ||
| is being applied, the expected audience(s) for the technology, | ||
| who the technology benefits and who it may disadvantage, | ||
| and any power dynamics involved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems very reminiscent of the priority of constituencies. Referencing it here does create somewhat of a circular dependency problem, though.
Curiously, the priority of constituencies seems to be both a concrete implementation of some of these principles in the platform and (as you describe here) a sort of meta principle that sits as an arbiter between said principles. I feel like @mnot addresses this tension well in RFC 8890 by tying the end-user focus to IETF's mission. Maybe we need something similar for W3C, to your point in #37 and @torgo's comment in #58?
In the meantime, I'd suggest either merging as is (and making a note of that tension in an issue) or replacing most of the selected text by a reference to the priority of constituencies (and filing an issue to come back and deal with the circularity of it all).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @tobie! I actually was going to add the priority of constituencies (which I don't think is a circular dependency, as that's in the Design Principles, which are already circularly referenced by the EWP) but then I realised it is mentioned immediately afterwards in 2.2. But maybe it is a good point to belabour. I don't think it's instead of though, as you could conceivably end up with competing principles applying to the same constituent, as well as principles that come into competition when applied to different constituents.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's instead of though, as you could conceivably end up with competing principles applying to the same constituent,[…]
Ha! That’s a great point I hadn’t thought about. That sounds like the right way to go about this!
No description provided.