Re: Privacy implications of automatic alternative selection (Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>)

On 11 Sep 2008, at 1:38 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

>
> The privacy implications of using media queries came up on the  
> telecon. (The tacit assumption was that revealing that one has a  
> given disability is a privacy-sensitive matter.)
>
> The choice of alternative media streams gives the content provider  
> information that correlates with the user's disabilities (unless  
> all alternatives were downloaded so that the content provider  
> couldn't tell with alternative was actually consumed).
>
> If the user has to select from alternatives, the information about  
> the choice is leaked to the content provider at that point.
>
> Media queries (or any other automatic selection mechanism), on the  
> other hand, would allow content providers to probe the user's  
> disability-correlated settings when the user visits a page without  
> taking specific further action on the page.

** on the product:

* state of the art
As you have heard from T.V. and Jan, the conventional wisdom so far  
as I know
is to

- make choices in terms of options as to how the system presents  
information to
the user and accepts input from the user.  Properties at the  
person:system I/F.

- subject these terms to universal design: make them reflect the  
breadth of use
situations where that personalization would be preferred.

** on the process:

Once again, HTML should not go it alone in addressing this issue.   
The partner
groups, in addition to WAI, that you should stay in touch with are:

- Ubiquitous Web Apps.  Here is the most direct interest in  
personalization among
the W3C groups.  That is to say this issue looms largest in their  
scope than in
the scope of (I think) any other.

- Synchronized Multimedia (SMIL): prior art in terms of encoding  
options and managing
choices.

- CSS: management of choices (you mentioned media queries)

- Voice Browser (<audio> in SSML and VoiceXML): prior art in encoding  
options.

- Multimedia Interaction: managing choices regarding the input side  
configuration.

- Web Security Context.  Making sure that the sharing of personally  
identifiable
or otherwise sensitive information is understood and approved by the  
user.

- Web Apps.   (formerly WebAPI): for the API level representation of  
the WSC agenda.

* notes:

* * bleeding edge

This thing won't fly without most choices being handled by automation,
but let me put in a plug for the
"Author proposes, user disposes" extreme.  The client side should always
have the right to have "what are my choices (i.e. options)" answered,  
rather than having
to answer "what are your choices (i.e. preferences)" to the server.   
As you say,
the server can still track which option gets exercised.  But in the  
end if the
user wants to take the time to browse the versions rather than having  
one picked
in the feedforward processing, they should have that capability.

For more along these lines, see also PFWG input to MMI on their  
architecture,
which talks extensively about personalization and coupling the input  
and output
personalization under a common management regime.

http://tinyurl.com/2ul6x4

Unfortunately Rich Schwerdtfeger is away as you raise this thread.   
He is
intimately involved in tech transfer of the IMS work in this area  
into the
Ubiquitous Web Applications stuff in W3C.  So I have to try to fill in.

HTH

Al

> -- 
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 12:02:25 UTC