W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:47:09 -0700
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <56FACDAD.6050605@sunshine.net>
On 3/29/16 11:15 AM, Stone, Matt wrote:
> "acceptor" pre-supposes a positive outcome, an inspector may accept or
> deny the claim - even if it's verified as authentic. -- I'm not crazy
> about "inspector" for the reasons you suggested above.
> Maybe we should be focused on the "ask" - this role is that of the
> "requester" , ie. some interested party has requested proof of
> {status/attribute}. Consult the thesaurus for "one who asks" :)

Agreed. But it's stronger than ask, in all cases that would interest 
us. It's required.


Credential Requirer


> I don't remember what language problem we're trying to solve was and
> why we are moving away from the concept of the "consumer" role.  Is
> there concern that the consumer might be confused with the holder of
> the credential?

Without referring to the past threads where it was discussed, I 
believe several people thought this.

For instance, here's Harper-Collins, and they only give two meanings 
for the noun 'consumer':
    "1.  a person who acquires goods and services for his or her own 
personal needs
    "2.  a person or thing that consumes"

Definition '1.' only refers to a 'person' -- not an entity or a thing. 
And this is so widespread a use today -- we are all 'consumers', it's 
a 'consumer society', businesses are producing goods for the 'the 
consumer', --that IMO it's unavoidably the first thing that will come 
up in the mind of anyone who encounters it.

And since it's linked in this way to a 'person' rather than an entity 
or an organization, it's also likely to be confused with the 'holder'.


> dave, can you remind me why we opened this thread?
> -stone
> =====
> Matt Stone
> 501-291-1599
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Steven Rowat
> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>> wrote:
>     Oops. Didn't finish a thought in previous post:
>     "  a) inspector has much baggage in current UI software. It seems
>     to me that everybody decided to put an 'Inspector' into their UI a
>     few years ago. I think that's a negative. Confusion of multiple
>     'inspector' roles already residing in the brains of [most computer
>     users],"
>     or something. Got confused even thinking about 'inspector'. ;-)
>     Steven
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:47:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 March 2016 18:47:44 UTC