W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-personalization-tf@w3.org > August 2020

Re: Update: joint meeting with CSSWG

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 15:22:25 +0900
Message-Id: <42877B12-3859-4310-B17B-D15A02A32014@rivoal.net>
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, APA Chairs <group-apa-chairs@w3.org>, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>, "Gottfried Zimmermann (Lists)" <zimmermann@accesstechnologiesgroup.com>, James Nurthen <nurthen@adobe.com>, Personalization tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>, Tess O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com>
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>


> On Aug 25, 2020, at 11:29, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>  I haven’t seen evidence to suggest that adding privacy restrictions on Media Features is a priority for the CSS MQ editors. (Rossen, Alan, and Florian may disagree.)

I agree that privacy is a weak spot of media queries. As you said, media features that can be useful to everybody have been specified, while we've been more reluctant to add those that relate exclusively to disabilities.

Even for those we have, the privacy aspect is still somewhat concerning.

Personally, I would welcome doing something to minimize the privacy impact, and if that could be used to open the path to even more sensitive queries, that would be great, but I must admit I don't quite know what the solution would be. But if the Working Group did have an idea on how to make progress, I'd be very supportive. Maybe the notion of privacy budget is applicable here? I must admit I don't fully understand how that works and what the status of this approach is though.

—Florian
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2020 06:22:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 25 August 2020 06:22:49 UTC