- From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:08:12 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAF4kx8fCLTcawV0zDqS92yS7YW+wSafqB6MP2qh0zfeuuZkadQ@mail.gmail.com>
You are assuming the site sticks a giant label on itself somewhere saying "We comply with DNT." If in your paper example, the store said "The following shelves have ISO A4 sheets, and these other shelves contain 8 1/2 x 11" I don't think you would have a case to be mad if you walked over to the 8 1/2 x 11 shelf and then said "But I wanted A4!!!" This is the same thing. If the site says "I support DNT under the following circumstances" and is clear about that, and you are outside of those circumstances, I don't think you have any reason to be surprised. -Ian On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Ian Fette wrote: > >A site is already under no obligation to conform to DNT. Would you rather > >have the user be clear that their request is being ignored, or left to > >wonder? > > You are mistaken. Sites are under no obligation to claim they conform to > the DNT specifications, but if they choose to claim they do, then they > most certainly are under obligations to conform to the specifications. > That's the whole point: the DNT specifications define who or what can > make conformance claims, and what obligations are incurred when they do. > > If you go into a paper shop and ask for 500 ISO A4 sheets of paper, and > they do not have ISO A4 paper, but they stick a ISO A4 label on some US > Letter sheets, and assure you that they are really ISO A4 sized, and you > go home and find they aren't ISO A4, you won't say "I should have known > the shop is under no obligation to sell A4 paper, and I am better off > with US Letter size paper than no paper." At least I would hope so. > > The Working Group may of course decide to have many classes and levels > of conformance, let's say "DNT Platinum" sites only have first party re- > sources, do not share any data, do not log identifiable data, and "DNT > Tomato" sites just tell you that you are tracked whatever your prefer- > ence is; or it could set up a "OS and Web Browser DNT UX Certification" > browser conformance level and program that makes sure it's difficult e- > nough to turn on DNT:1, with a corresponding conformance level for sites > where they ignore DNT signals from non-certified user agents, and so on. > > Similarily, the Working Group might decide that "site" is not the right > scope, and instead have separate classes for "ad networks" and "weather > widgets" and whatever else, as it sees fit, but there is no basis for > "you don't have to claim conformance, so you when you claim conformance > you don't have to implement all applicable MUSTs"-style arguments. > > As for the specific feature you propose above, I see no reason to have > features to make negative conformance claims; it's much better to infer > likely non-conformance from the absence of positive conformance claims. > If usability studies have shown the mere claim "I ignore DNT signals" is > useful to normal users, then I would suggest to make that a conformance > level if people expect great interest in this on part of site owners. > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ >
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2012 02:08:41 UTC