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

Again let's be careful with our language here.  This isn't just about
"making a choice".  "Do you like hot dogs (1) or hamburgers (0)?", is a
choice, but it is not a representation of a user's preference with respect
to how they wish a recipient server to respond in relation to the DNT
Compliance Spec.  The later is what a UA is required to have before
sending a signal.  
-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 8/22/12 6:41 PM, "Craig Spiezle" <craigs@otalliance.org> wrote:

>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 Thursday, 23 August 2012 13:17:48 UTC