Re: QUESTION FOR BROWSERS who have partial DNT implementations today - plans to fully implement? (i.e. DNT:0)

So not to open a can of worms but this does go to a core issue.  UAs MUST reflect user's preference, but there seems to me to be a tautological problem with capturing this preference if the preference is based on undefined terms.  Sid's real life description of how preference is to be sought brings this home.

How can I capture a preference relating to your desire to be *humflamated* when there is no definition of the word?  It isn't a question of how you phrase "do you want to be humflamated?";  it is a question both of the word being defined AND the user's ability to understand that definition in a way that would allow them to express a meaningful preference.



--

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

[cid:E7457914-506A-453C-857C-3F4D1BBF527F]

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.

From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
Date: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:39 PM
To: Sid Stamm <sid@mozilla.com<mailto:sid@mozilla.com>>
Cc: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net<mailto:mike@iab.net>>, David Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org<mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>, Marc Groman <mgroman@networkadvertising.org<mailto:mgroman@networkadvertising.org>>, Alex Fowler - Mozilla <afowler@mozilla.com<mailto:afowler@mozilla.com>>, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com<mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com>>
Subject: Re: QUESTION FOR BROWSERS who have partial DNT implementations today - plans to fully implement? (i.e. DNT:0)
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:40 PM

Sid,

Thank you for the detailed reply to my questions.  I think you deserve special props for being the only browser maker on this forum to not skirt the questions I posed with a standard "no comment" reply. It's only through constructive and open dialog that we'll be able to bridge the gaps that prevent us from mutual understanding, so I personally commend you for being open and transparent.

I appreciate the difficulty and sensitivity in getting the UI right.  Similar to your concern outlined about DNT:0 user messaging, I believe current DNT:1 user messaging suffers from lack of full context:  when you present a user with "check here if you don't want to be tracked", the word "track" sounds REALLY negative without further context (perception only - not reality)-- and most users presented with this UI messaging wouldn't naturally jump to contemplating their relationship with the advertising/content value exchange.  I have been a vocal advocate that this working group should establish consistent, fair and contextually relevant user messaging for the TP/DNT options.

Instead of "tell sites to track me", how about "turn on interest-based content & advertising" or "deliver content & advertising customized to my interests"?

Finally, can you please clarify: "We are currently working to find something our usability experts agree will work.."?  When you say "will work", what is the definition of "work"?  In other words, what is Mozilla's goal in making the DNT:0 user option "work"?

Many Thanks and Best Regards,

Chris

Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB


On 7/25/12 4:26 PM, "Sid Stamm" <sid@mozilla.com<mailto:sid@mozilla.com>> wrote:

Hi Chris,

(I sent this message, though apparently I picked the wrong thread for
reply, so I'm re-sending this to the mailing list.  Apologies for
repeating myself.)

We plan to provide an option for all Firefox users to send a DNT:0
option.  We've implemented this in our prototype Firefox OS [0] and are
currently working to design and deploy three-state settings for our
desktop and Android browsers.  There's difficulty in the wording and
user interface, and we're working through that now.  (For example,
nobody will want to enable a "tell sites to track me", and checkboxes
don't have three states).

We are currently working to find something our usability experts agree
will work and will deploy the third state to our users soon.

There's no real *technical* hold-ups here per se; rather, the difficulty
is around user experience: we need to ship something to users that they
understand and can properly act on so that it is valuable.  This takes
time and planning to get right, as I'm sure you understand.

Cheers,
Sid

[0]
http://blog.mozilla.org/privacy/2012/02/28/do-not-track-goes-mobile-mozilla-demos-preference-at-mobile-world-congress/

On 07/25/2012 09:42 AM, Chris Mejia wrote:
This is a question is for the browser companies that have implemented
DNT:1 today (Mozilla, MSFT):
     *
     *
     *Do you plan to implement a DNT:0 option (per the draft W3C spec),
     and if so, what is your timeline for implementation?  I'd also like
     to understand why you have implemented only DNT:1 (a partial
     implementation) but not DNT:0?*
As browser companies ask publishers to "honor" DNT signals that are
propagated from your browser, many publishers have read the draft W3C
spec, and are struggling to understand your partial implementation.
  Your explanation and justification may be helpful as they evaluate if
or how to "honor" the DNT signal.
I'll be sharing your answer (or lack thereof) to this important question
with IAB membership as part of our continued education program
surrounding the draft DNT specification.
Many Thanks.
Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB