Re: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

On 06/12/2013 15:52, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> Walter - I don't believe that's a true statement.  Our accessibility
> team uses general browsers as well as Lynx with text readers equally
> well.  I believe you're trying to say while it's trivial for Lynx to
> add a new setting for DNT, it's somehow much more difficult to
> support the exception storage API.  I also don't believe that's the
> case.  All web browsers seeking to support DNT setting must also
> support exception setting.

Dear Shane,

Given your own technical background I am flabbergasted by the ease with
which you compare a non-trivial endeavour such as the inclusion of
javascript support in a browser that never had it for *thirty* years
with something as trivial as adding a DNT:1 flag to its HTTP-requests.

Or even a more likely use case:

A visually impaired person uses a screenreader and a text-only web
browser such as lynx. He or she has a router configured to insert DNT:1
for any network interaction that has DNT unset, as configured per the
explicit wishes of the user.

a) how would this not be an informed opt-out?
b) how is this fundamentally different from a user that uses a UA that
meets your requirements but just never grants an exception?
c) how is this different from a user that uses a UA that has javascript
turned off by default and keeps it turned off for third-party content?
d) how is the server going to know that there is no UGE support at all
other than through discrimination based on user agent strings?

Admittedly Lynx is not the only text-only browser out there, but still a
widely used one in the niche of text-only browser. The other text-only
browsers tend to have limited javascript support and given this
particular niche user base one cannot expect a quick expansion of that
to include the UGE.

Then there is also the group of visually impaired users that use screen
readers that function only with Internet Explorer 6. They will likewise
be unable to meet your requirements for not being tracked.

Generally speaking screenreaders, even the latest ones, do not play well
with javascript because they cause the DOM to become dynamic, which is a
hard problem for screenreader designers.

Basically you are relegating an already underserved goup, the visually
impaired, to a second-class netizen status. If that is the official
Yahoo! position, I wonder how Yahoo! reconciles that with notions such
as ADA-compliance.


Regards,

 Walter

Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 16:58:06 UTC