Use of “session” in “In Brief” in Understanding SC 3.3.7: Redundant Entry (Level A)

[yatil]

In the Understanding for 3.3.7, the “In Brief” section postulates:

What to do: Don't ask for the same information twice in the same session.

The word session is not mentioned in the success criterion. It is part of the Understanding, but only in the context that information does not need to be preserved between sessions.

When you have multiple processes within a session, the success criterion permits re-entry, even within the same session.

Example:

A user places an order and enters a different shipping address. If they place another order right after that, the changed shipping address does not need to be preserved despite the user being in the same session.

Introducing the word session in “In Brief” is unnecessary and I would recommend using “process” instead.

[mbgower]

The use of "session" made it intact through all the TF and WG reviews, but I agree it is not the best option for the reasons you state.

I'm going to suggest "procedure", simply because "process" already exists in the normative text, and one of the tactics we used was employing synonyms rather than simply restating an existing normative wording. The rationale was that other wording had a better chance of enhancing understanding, where someone could not 'get it' from the actual SC wording that already existed.

Don't ask for the same information twice in the same procedure.

[patrickhlauke]

ah, i commented on the suggested change before seeing your comment here @mbgower - i'd actually say that introducing "procedure" here would make it less understandable, not more, and would opt to keep the term "process"

[yatil]

Why would we want to introduce synonyms when there are normative defined terms for things, especially if it’s a commonly used word? The in-brief should be an on ramp, and I see people misinterpreting in-brief as pseudo-normative and trying to find definitions for words in them. Just use the words we have. It’s OK.

[mbgower]

Why would we want to introduce synonyms when there are normative defined terms for things, especially if it’s a commonly used word? The in-brief should be an on ramp, and I see people misinterpreting in-brief as pseudo-normative and trying to find definitions for words in them. Just use the words we have. It’s OK.

I already explained the tactical usage of synonyms in the formation of the In Brief materials. It is intentional and was supported by EO. The use of synonyms is endemic.

In this particular case, we have replaced the word "session" as you requested. The word activity is in usage in the Understanding document, specifically in context of the term "process"

A process is defined on the basis of an activity...

"Processes" already occurs in the preceding line on the In Brief materail, and "process" appears in the first line of the SC wording, a few lines later. Is there some way in which you feel "activity" creates a problem in understanding?

[alastc]

I think we're agreeing that "session" triggers the wrong implications.

Personally, I don't think there's much difference between process and activity, especially as the process definition is based on activity. The first line talks about "processes", so I'd lean towards "activity".

As Eric doesn't agree I've replaced that PR with #4282

[yatil]

Is there some way in which you feel "activity" creates a problem in understanding?

It just feels like an unnecessary complication (like most “In Brief” sections, but I am over that gripe).

I already explained the tactical usage of synonyms in the formation of the In Brief materials. It is intentional and was supported by EO. The use of synonyms is endemic.

EO is dead. I often see people using synonyms where they should be using the technically defined term, and I think if the technically correct term is not a terribly uncommon word (like “process”), then it should be used.

I’m OK with the change, it’s better than session for sure, as long as I don’t get attributed.