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

RE: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:27:03 -0800
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
CC: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8027484D7E34D@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
David,

I disagree on your observations that "browsers cannot 'hide' whatever their options are, and have little direct incentive to mislead anyone".  I believe real-world events have already shown this to be a false statement - especially if you cascade this beyond "browsers" to all UA agents.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:33 PM
To: Alan Chapell
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; David Singer
Subject: Re: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal


On Nov 18, 2012, at 10:03 , Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote:

> I agree -- specifying exact wording isn't a great idea - but that's 
> not what I'm suggesting.
> 
> Setting the expectation that UA's communicate DNT functionality 
> clearly and completely addresses the very real possibility that some 
> UA's will characterize DNT functionality in a way that is a) unclear, 
> b) filled with hyperbole, or those that c) enact DNT without even telling Users.
> 
> While I think that public, marketplace and regulatory pressure might 
> address c), I tend to doubt that they will address a) and b).
> 
> I'm a bit surprised that this is so controversial. After all, the goal 
> here is to provide consumer's with informed choice, correct?

Alan

I take it, following this thread, that you OK with even stronger language for sites, when they are getting consent for an exception?  Sites have every incentive to get users to agree, and it's easy to call the API to log the exception with the UA.  In contrast, the browsers cannot 'hide' whatever their options are, and have little direct incentive to mislead anyone.


> 
> 
> On 11/18/12 12:35 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday 15 November 2012 15:46:14 David Singer wrote:
>>>> łThe User Agent MUST make available explanatory text to provide 
>>>> more detailed information about DNT functionality within easy and 
>>>> direct access for the particular environment prior to DNT being 
>>>> enabled.˛
>>> and all sites will, of course, be mandated to do the same or better 
>>> for exception requests?
>> 
>> <joke>
>> YES! All sides MUST implement P3P to fulfill DNT! After 10 years, the 
>> magic bullet to get ubiquituous P3P adoption.
>> </joke>
>> 
>> I thought we have always worked under the assumption that we do not 
>> proscribe UA GUI. Because my experience is that we can write whatever 
>> we want into a Specification, but UAs won' t necessarily honor that. 
>> UI is where browsers compete. While some simple, well-tested 
>> proscribed text would probably create some kind of a circuit where 
>> users better understand and adapt their expectations, I don't see 
>> momentum.
>> 
>> I rather think that it creates an eco-system where browser that 
>> promise too much can be punished by users who are deceived and by 
>> sites responding that they won't honor. And we'll see waves into one 
>> or the other direction before it stabilizes.
>> 
>> Rigo
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 00:27:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC