- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:01:16 +1100
- To: Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>
- Cc: "public-privacy (W3C mailing list)" <public-privacy@w3.org>
Hi Nick, Sorry - it came up in F2F discussion and e-mail was the easiest way to distribute the link. There isn't anything particularly actionable, it was just a FYI. Cheers, > On 19 Nov 2017, at 8:59 am, Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Apologies, but for those of us that missed some part of the in-person discussion, I'd love a little more background here. The README says: > >> Over the course of its existence, the web has accumulated a multitude of standards and common patterns. While most of these are beneficial for both developers and users, if abused (intentionally or otherwise) web APIs can sometimes be a detriment to user experience. >> >> An intervention is when a user agent decides to deviate slightly from a standardized behavior in order to provide a greatly enhanced user experience. Because of its nature, it must be done sparingly and with extreme prudence. > > But I'm not certain I entirely understand. Is this about changing specs that mandate behavior that has been found to have negative consequences for users? Or documenting cases where something is already optional in the spec but was commonly turned on by default (like video autoplay)? (Or both/neither?) > > I guess my goal for our privacy reviewing work would be to try to find out when these bad outcomes are happening and catch them earlier in the spec process, by not overspecifying behavior and allowing more UA flexibility, or anticipating these bad outcomes and not deploying that functionality to begin with. > > —Nick > >> On Nov 15, 2017, at 11:52 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> >> As discussed: >> https://github.com/WICG/interventions >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2017 04:01:46 UTC