Re: User intended interactions [1st & 3rd Parties]

On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:

[…]
> I think we should talk about URL shorteners, and try to identify the
> line there. I don't think that the group has thought enough about this
> use case to reach consensus yet, and there are some tricky twiddly bits.
> However, I think that this is a lower priority item.

One possible approach: add a placeholder to address issue-97, which is essentially "what do we do about URL shorteners and friends?" We can come back to it later. I do not see it holding up our ability to work through other issues, and I would rather get the main 80% of DNT cases figured out before we worry about each of the fascinating edge cases we are raising as we go.

> Jonathan's first point is quite important. It seems that we should have
> a conversation about this detail. Though not urgent, it's something we
> should approach sooner rather than later.
> 
> To Jonathan's second point I would argue for an objective reasonableness
> standard. I don't think that users need to be familiar with that
> *particular* brand, simply that they recognize the element in question
> to be distinctly branded from the primary page that they intended to visit.

Do I understand that you are suggesting treating an unknown party with first-party status, so long as the user knows that party differs from the main page yet interacts anyway? Even for an entirely unbranded widget, just so long as it is clearly not from the primary first party?

	Aleecia

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 08:37:19 UTC