W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2012

RE: issues and questions in the latest TPE draft

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:21:55 -0700
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8026207178CB0@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
If UIs become sinister in their attempts to alter user exception choices presented by a Server then Servers can move to pure out-of-band recording of user exceptions.  This would be a loss for users as this removes the positive option for users to centrally manage their exceptions.  But as one browser UA has proven, thinking of users in the broader Internet eco-system perspective isn't always a priority.

In Seattle we discussed that Servers could optionally record an OOB (Out of Band) Exception within the UA but with a flag to state this was set by the Server.  This gives the positive option of central management with links back to the Server to alter the choice (versus managing the choice directly in the UA).  I thought this was a nice balanced approach to the issue - a middle-ground.  Are we still supportive of this outcome?  I hope so...

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Bateman [mailto:adrianba@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:17 AM
To: David Wainberg; Nicholas Doty
Cc: David Singer; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: RE: issues and questions in the latest TPE draft

On 29 August 2012 06:15, David Wainberg wrote:
> The issue is not conflict between two contradictory UI's or messaging 
> presented by the site, but conflict (or redundancy) between the UI and 
> message presented by the site vs a UI and message presented by the UA. 
> I think there is consensus that the site should control the message around the exception request, yes?
> Assuming that's true, UA's should not be encouraged to also provide a 
> UI, which is, I think, what the example does.

It's pretty unlikely that user agents will show UI completely controlled by the web site. Someone might be able to provide one but I can't think of an example where this is possible today. In fact, things are going in the opposite direction as we try harder to make it difficult for web sites to spoof users (imagine the web site that says "You've won a vacation - click Yes to accept").
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 15:22:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:33 UTC