W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2011

tracking-ISSUE-94: Is "Do Not Track" the right name to use? [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

From: Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:26:24 +0000
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RIQAC-0001VK-OY@barney.w3.org>

tracking-ISSUE-94: Is "Do Not Track" the right name to use? [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/94

Raised by: Aleecia McDonald
On product: Tracking Definitions and Compliance

NOTE: This issue is not currently open for discussion, but we may return to it in the future. Mailing list discussion prior to creation is summarized below; see the mailing list archives for the full context.


Open questions (from various email threads):

- To what extent does the definition of tracking need to equal the dictionary definition? Could create consumer confusion if the definition does not comport with dictionary.
- Could deal with confusion through education and messaging; we're dealing with a technical standard here, not a dictionary of common usage. User is never going to guess the meaning correctly all the time.
- To what extent does the term "Do Not Track" have investment behind it, and to what extent must it reflect the end spec? Should the phrase as slogan stay if the end definitions do not support it exactly?
- Momentum behind the name as a slogan
- The urge to define "tracking" stems from the concern that "do not track" sounds like it will forbid all tracking. That, of course, also is not our intention so we feel compelled to redefine the word "track" to curtail its scope (in more of a legal document type of context).
- To what extent must the definition minimize confusion?
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 19:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:41 UTC