Re: ISSUE-83: Scenario updates (for certain abilities and functional limitations)

On 2007-07-20 08:06:29 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> I'm mildly uncomfortable with this, as I don't think it's a
> primary goal, and it's worded in a pretty strong fashion. However
> I'm good with having a scenario that is shows how one person
> wants to help another make the right trust decisions by helping
> them to be in a context that reduces them (whether it's child or
> elder), and this one does that. So since there's been no push
> back, I'm good with it (but if anyone wants to make it a tad 
> less gut wrenching, I'd support that). 

Your points aside, I'm rather uncomfortable with the amount of
content filtering and child protection that's sneaking in here.

While these are, of course, important topics broadly, we might be
inviting a lot of discussion that is (a) outside our scope and (b)
outside the expertise of most in the group.  Quite bluntly, I don't
think that we should send the message that we're going to address
child protection online, since that will cause a lot of distraction,
and since we wouldn't be able to deliver on that message anyway.

Also, I'd submit that the "She wants to be able..." part of the use
case is phrased to imply a particular solution to the real problem
(she doesn't want her daughter to be exposed to particular content).
Strikes me as taking two steps at a time in a way that's not
appropriate for the note.

In summary, I don't think this use case should make it into the Note
as currently suggested; I'd rather see the filtering aspect removed
completely, and the overall focus readjusted to calling out users
with limited abilities.

If we find out that this actually doesn't take a specific use case,
but is simply worth calling out explicitly in a different spot, then
that's fine as well.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

Received on Monday, 23 July 2007 19:26:54 UTC