Re: Alternative Text for DNT: 0 (ACTION-209, ISSUE-148)

There is, to be sure, a level of generality problem.  I think we can reasonably expect more than just a "learn more" link and less than a full privacy policy.  Without getting prescriptive, we can ask for some modest degree of inline explanation.  I've attached a rough UI mockup that reflects my thinking.

Jonathan  


On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM, JC Cannon wrote:

>  
> Jonathan,
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
> The text, “it MUST clearly explain those practices” seems a bit vague. How about “it MUST explain why it is making the request”? I don’t feel explaining all practices within a request is practical. A “Learn more” link would be more practical.
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
> Thanks,
>  
>  
> JC
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]  
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:44 AM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org (mailto:public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Alternative Text for DNT: 0 (ACTION-209, ISSUE-148)
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
> Normative:
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> i. In General
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> A DNT: 0 exception allows a website to conduct specific practices that are otherwise prohibited by this specification.
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> ii. Explanation Requirement
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> When a website requests a DNT: 0 exception, it MUST clearly explain those practices to the user.
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> iii. Multiple Semantics
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> If a website maintains multiple semantics for DNT: 0, it is responsible for associating the proper semantic with a user agent.  If a website cannot determine the semantics associated with a DNT: 0 exception, it may not rely on the exception.
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> Non-Normative Discussion:
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> i. Legal Implications
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
> This specification does not take a position on whether the DNT: 0 exception mechanism is sufficient to satisfy any legal requirements.
>  
>  
>  
>   
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 21:50:16 UTC