- From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:41:47 -0700
- To: "'Tamir Israel'" <tisrael@cippic.ca>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "'Shane Wiley'" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
In the context of the user having to choose either express or customized settings, I tend to believe the user has made an choice. This assume neither radio button is pre-selected. This is a common first run experience on many products. While some may not like this scenario for the fear of it resulting in a higher adoption of DNT, it is our opinion it does constitute user choice (again assuming notice of what DNT means. We would like to see a link or added content sharing what DNT does and the benefits and trade off). At the same time adding friction to the user to discourage the selection is short sided and is what occurred in IE 8 when InPrivate was neutered. -----Original Message----- From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 3:23 PM To: David Singer Cc: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers Here's a screenshot. Again, I personally agree there are problems with relying on this type of mechanism as 'express user preference', but in spite of that, it is commonly used in a lot of contexts. Second, I'm wondering if people feel that by rejecting this approach, we are veering into UI-constraint land? On 8/22/2012 6:15 PM, David Singer wrote: > Perhaps we should wait to see the actual product; we may be off into hypothetical weeds here.
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 22:42:16 UTC