>And, IE11? >From what I see it is not subjected to the same restrictions that 10, note that issues with older browsers fade away for browsers with auto-update.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Oliver Keyes <[email protected]> wrote: > And, IE11? 12? My point is that yes, we can go about writing a lot of > exceptions for specific use cases, and coming up with solutions for > each browser's DNT idiosyncracies, but the costs of that trade-off > increase the more we have to support. > > I'd much rather we built a uniform system that asked users to > explicitly opt-out, and made clear what they were opting out of: it's > quite clear from both the public and private discussions around DNT > that there is a big detachment between user expectations of DNT and > what the protocol actually does, and so we should probably avoid > treating that protocol as a flag. > > On 14 January 2015 at 13:45, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > >>For example, not collecting usage data about certain sections of our > >> population (e.g. IE10 users where DNT is set by default) >means that we > >> don't know if our software works for them. This isn't free, and in the > >> long-term, it can have substantial negative >effects. If DNT was always > >> disabled by default in major browsers, I would expect such biases to be > >> minimal. > > IE faulty support, downright wrong support or no support of many of the > web > > apis is no news to anyone doing web development in the last 10 years and > > nothing to write your mom about, really. > > > > IE is treated it specially in many areas and we might do so in this one > too > > if it turns out that: > > > > - No service pack install has corrected the DNT default (sounds like no, > > this did not happen) > > > > - IE10 traffic is significant. I will get those numbers as I checked > > browsers stats more than 6 months ago and things might have > > changed significantly. Last time I checked I *believe* (going from > memory) > > we had quite a bit less traffic from ie10 than ie8. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Nuria > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Aaron Halfaker < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Ori, I don't think you addressed the point I made about that study. > They > >> didn't ask users what they thought *their* browser setting meant and > what > >> they expected. They asked what they thought a big red button with "DO > NOT > >> TRACK" on it meant -- and the most common answer had to do with their > local > >> browser history! > >> > >> Regardless, I think you make a good point. The cost of getting > something > >> wrong here may not be symmetrical, but it's not clear to me that erring > on > >> collecting absolutely no data is less costly. > >> > >> For example, not collecting usage data about certain sections of our > >> population (e.g. IE10 users where DNT is set by default) means that we > don't > >> know if our software works for them. This isn't free, and in the > long-term, > >> it can have substantial negative effects. If DNT was always disabled by > >> default in major browsers, I would expect such biases to be minimal. > >> > >> Also, I think that if a user sets DNT and expects it to do something it > >> isn't supposed to do, we can always point them to the spec. It's a sad > >> fact that, if you want to remain private on the web, you're going to > need to > >> inform yourself about how such things work. Just because we adopt an > >> extreme/overly-simplistic doesn't mean that the people you really don't > want > >> to have your behavioral data will to -- but it certainly has the > potential > >> to make research & product's job much more difficult. > >> > >> Really, what I'm trying to say is that if I "decline to collect data > about > >> [you]", you shouldn't say, "meh". You should be concerned about how > we're > >> not considering what works and does not work for people like you when we > >> design, test and deploy software changes. In a way, it's like taking > away > >> your vote. And if you don't believe that, I'd like to suggest that the > only > >> alternative is that the work that I do does not bring value to our > users -- > >> and I'd beg to differ. > >> > >> -Aaron > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Ori Livneh <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Aaron Halfaker < > [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> They're really only asking what people think of when they read the > words > >>>> "Do Not Track". I'd be more interested in knowing what people expect > when > >>>> then look at their particular browser setting and what it is they > actually > >>>> hope it will accomplish. > >>> > >>> > >>> While it's true that there is ambiguity about what users are objecting > to > >>> when they turn on DNT (3rd party tracking? behavioral tracking? all > data > >>> collection?), the costs of getting it wrong not symmetrical. If I > object to > >>> all forms of data collection, and you collect data about me anyway, > I'd be > >>> pretty upset. But if I'm OK with certain forms of data collection, and > you > >>> decline to collect data about me.. meh. > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Analytics mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Analytics mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Analytics mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > > > > > > -- > Oliver Keyes > Research Analyst > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
