Re: CT - interacting with the user

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:11:55 +0200, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:

> OK. I had thought it would be hard to construe the document in such a  
> way that a terms of service agreement would suffice ... but even if that  
> is the case perhaps there is still scope for people doing so. So can you  
> please note specifically where you think this is the case and suggest  
> editorial remedies to make sure it is clear.

As far as I can tell, the document makes no statements whatever about how  
to do this, so while it is drawing a legalistic bow of some length, the  
interpetation can be made to stand up against the requirements of the  
document.

To go a bit further, I am not convinced that we should be mandating what I  
suspect the group intuitively understands but has not expressed by "inform  
the user". In particular, any attempt to tell people whose business model  
is based on providing a particular rendering, what that rendering should  
include, has to be based on extremely solid requirements that are  
demonstrably necessary for the user.

Likewise, would "provide a website where the user can go and alter their  
preferences (and look up their use history)" meet the requirements? I  
certainly wouldn't want to mandate that as what must be done, but I  
suspect it would meet my test for "this is a reasonable approach".

Anyway, talk to you about this soon...

cheers

Chaals

> Jo
>
> On 28/09/2009 13:02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:37:54 +0200, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
>>
>>> Chaals
>>>
>>> The requirement on the proxy only kicks in when they are doing things  
>>> that mean they are stepping out from behind the transparency you  
>>> discuss.
>>  No, the transparency I discuss is not the one mentioned in the spec,  
>> but
>> the fact that the user isn't generally in direct communication with the
>> proxy (the user agent is), but is getting presented something that
>> purports to be the content s/he is looking for, as transformed by the
>> proxy.
>>
>>> So I'd prefer to remain silent on this. Many of the proxies we are  
>>> talking about in this case, do in fact communicate directly with the  
>>> user. I don't think we should mandate the nature of the communication.
>>  Well, as I understand it we are mandating a set of interactions by
>> requiring the proxy to get some information from the user, or give the
>> user some information. Is it sufficient to deliver these in a terms of
>> service agreement, or do we mean that these should be live interactions
>> during the browser session?
>>  And if we mean the latter, what are the minimum ways to satisfy this -  
>> is
>> it sufficient to add a link back to the proxy for warnings and
>> interactions somewhere after the bottom of the content the proxy is  
>> being
>> asked to present, or do these need to be visible warnings presented  
>> before
>> the page itself?
>>  I agree that we should be very conservative in mandating interaction  
>> behaviour, but I think in the current draft we are simply  
>> underspecifying requirements, and since I believe that a terms of  
>> service agreement satisfies the current draft, but I believe that is  
>> not what the group has in mind, I think we need to get a bit more  
>> clarity on this.
>>  cheers
>>  Chaals
>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>  From Chaals:
>>>
>>> Proxies by their nature don't generally interact directly with the  
>>> user. I
>>> think it is worth explaining what we mean by "inform the user", "advise
>>> the user", "allow the user to..." etc.
>>>
>>> One approach is for the proxy to ship content explicitly to the user
>>> (instead, presumably, of what the user actually asked for). Another is  
>>> to
>>> make flags available to the user agent which is accessing the proxy  
>>> (e.g.
>>> generating 300 responses, vary headers, or the like) which would allow  
>>> the
>>> UA to do whatever it normally does that allows the user to make  
>>> choices.
>>>
>>> This question is important because at the moment we seem to be implying
>>> requirements on the proxy which either make assumptions about the UA,  
>>> or
>>> contradict the goal of letting the user simply go to the content they
>>> asked for (which is the service proxies generally provide, trying to  
>>> be if
>>> not transparent in teh terms of the document then at least as  
>>> invisible as
>>> possible).
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Chaals
>>>
>>


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 13:19:38 UTC