- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:01:40 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
On 11 Sep 2008, at 1:38 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > The privacy implications of using media queries came up on the > telecon. (The tacit assumption was that revealing that one has a > given disability is a privacy-sensitive matter.) > > The choice of alternative media streams gives the content provider > information that correlates with the user's disabilities (unless > all alternatives were downloaded so that the content provider > couldn't tell with alternative was actually consumed). > > If the user has to select from alternatives, the information about > the choice is leaked to the content provider at that point. > > Media queries (or any other automatic selection mechanism), on the > other hand, would allow content providers to probe the user's > disability-correlated settings when the user visits a page without > taking specific further action on the page. ** on the product: * state of the art As you have heard from T.V. and Jan, the conventional wisdom so far as I know is to - make choices in terms of options as to how the system presents information to the user and accepts input from the user. Properties at the person:system I/F. - subject these terms to universal design: make them reflect the breadth of use situations where that personalization would be preferred. ** on the process: Once again, HTML should not go it alone in addressing this issue. The partner groups, in addition to WAI, that you should stay in touch with are: - Ubiquitous Web Apps. Here is the most direct interest in personalization among the W3C groups. That is to say this issue looms largest in their scope than in the scope of (I think) any other. - Synchronized Multimedia (SMIL): prior art in terms of encoding options and managing choices. - CSS: management of choices (you mentioned media queries) - Voice Browser (<audio> in SSML and VoiceXML): prior art in encoding options. - Multimedia Interaction: managing choices regarding the input side configuration. - Web Security Context. Making sure that the sharing of personally identifiable or otherwise sensitive information is understood and approved by the user. - Web Apps. (formerly WebAPI): for the API level representation of the WSC agenda. * notes: * * bleeding edge This thing won't fly without most choices being handled by automation, but let me put in a plug for the "Author proposes, user disposes" extreme. The client side should always have the right to have "what are my choices (i.e. options)" answered, rather than having to answer "what are your choices (i.e. preferences)" to the server. As you say, the server can still track which option gets exercised. But in the end if the user wants to take the time to browse the versions rather than having one picked in the feedforward processing, they should have that capability. For more along these lines, see also PFWG input to MMI on their architecture, which talks extensively about personalization and coupling the input and output personalization under a common management regime. http://tinyurl.com/2ul6x4 Unfortunately Rich Schwerdtfeger is away as you raise this thread. He is intimately involved in tech transfer of the IMS work in this area into the Ubiquitous Web Applications stuff in W3C. So I have to try to fill in. HTH Al > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen@iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > >
Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 12:02:22 UTC