W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > August 2012

RE: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

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>
Message-ID: <044301cd80b7$509e1400$f1da3c00$@otalliance.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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:54 UTC