I like how this discussion is progressing towards a solution. I can't actually think of any practical opt out schemes _except_ for DNT at this time. Any thoughts?
-Toby On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > >2) We add an opt-out option that users can use to signal that they don't > want any data from them to be collected by us (except >for operational > purposes). The nice thing about this option is that Wikimedia has control > over it and if browser X decides to >change their DNT defaults (IE10 > example Aaron brought up), we can stay consistent in the choices we provide > to users. The >downside is that I know it will take some time to implement > this and we don't have an interim solution. > > Note that any opt-out solution implemented needs a level of persistence, > and that will also be subjected to browser support. If we persist the opt > out in local storage, for example, that is by no means supported by all > browsers. If we use a cookie, it will expire, be deleted, and we will need > to ask the user again. Both these options include plenty UX/UI work that I > very much doubt will take place in the near future (this quarter). > > > As I have stated before I will got for solution 1) given that we can start > implementing it right now and it is very intuitive to explain to our users. > We can treat browser oddities and lack of support as we do in other areas, > we can for example not honor do not track for IE10 (or the opposite). These > are trade offs that we are used to make when it comes to browser support. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Leila Zia <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Here's what we all agree on: We want the users of Wikimedia sites to >> have more control over whether their data is used for application >> improvement purposes. To be clear, we're not talking about data collected >> and deleted for operational purposes. >> >> Based on our conversations, we have three choices. >> >> 1) We use the divide in interpreting what DNT means to interpret it in a >> more restrictive way. This has its own advantages and disadvantages as >> discussed in this list and others. >> >> 2) We add an opt-out option that users can use to signal that they don't >> want any data from them to be collected by us (except for operational >> purposes). The nice thing about this option is that Wikimedia has >> control over it and if browser X decides to change their DNT defaults >> (IE10 example Aaron brought up), we can stay consistent in the choices we >> provide to users. The downside is that I know it will take some time to >> implement this and we don't have an interim solution. >> >> 3) We use DNT as an interim solution and interpret DNT as "do not log >> anything from me" and work towards an opt-out option. >> >> If we have capacity to go with option (2) and have it ready in few >> months, I'd like us to go with that option. Otherwise, option (3) is a >> reasonable option to me. >> >> Leila >> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Christian, >>> >>> It seems that people are well enough informed by the field studies that >>> our team runs to want us to continue to run them. In fact, demand has >>> sky-rocketed both within and outside of the Wikimedia Foundation. You hold >>> a minority opinion that testing software in the field is unnecessary. Yet, >>> field tests are considered a best-practice and have become a critical part >>> of our strategy for minimizing the disruption (and maximizing the benefits) >>> of software changes. I don't think that many people would appreciate your >>> proposed strategy of releasing the software and waiting for people to >>> complain. Given how difficult it is to develop good user-facing software, >>> it's likely that every major deployment would be disruptive if we adopted >>> that strategy. I can speak for a few disruptions that my research helped >>> prevent and some opportunities that it helped us explore. >>> >>> Allow me to share a specific example. In this study[1], we found that >>> telling anonymous editors to register dropped their productivity by >>> *25%.* Yet we didn't identify substantial issues in user testing. If >>> we had not run this field experiment, we might have deployed the change >>> thinking that we were improving Wikipedia when we were really driving good >>> editors away. During the experiment, we received no substantial negative >>> feedback >>> >>> For a large collection of field experiments that were used to iterate on >>> Wikimedia software, see: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Growth >>> >>> Really, what I want to say is this: If you want to improve privacy >>> protections, I am your ally. We're merely disagreeing about whether it is >>> good to assume that DNT means something it wasn't intended to mean or not. >>> However, when you say that my work has no value, it's hard to talk to you >>> productively because, honestly, I don't think your opinion is >>> well-informed. >>> >>> 1. >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Asking_anonymous_editors_to_register/Study_1 >>> >>> -Aaron >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Christian Aistleitner < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:07:57PM -0600, Aaron Halfaker 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. >>>> >>>> If WMF's main form of QA was through automated usage data collection, >>>> you'd have a point. >>>> >>>> But actually, I think WMF is doing better than that. >>>> >>>> From my point of view, a central pillar in QA is “software getting >>>> tested”. >>>> That's happening widely across WMF. >>>> Both manually and automated. >>>> It's great already and getting better every day. >>>> >>>> And for me the main QA ingredient is listening to feedback from the >>>> users. Besides studies and dog-fooding, WMF's bugtracker is a >>>> testament to that and contains reports that “$X is not working on >>>> browser $Y” or “$X needs to also do $Z”. >>>> And that's really great! >>>> >>>> To me, user behaviour data collection is a way to support and assist >>>> the above two. But it is not a requirement when trying to determine >>>> “if our software works for them”. >>>> >>>> Users are sending us emails about issues, come to IRC to discuss >>>> issues, file a ticket, or they just tell someone. >>>> All without having their usage data collected. >>>> >>>> I am convinced “IE10 users that do not want to unset DNT” are no >>>> exception to that. >>>> >>>> Have fun, >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> P.S.: I for one received bug reports from IE10 users. (But I do not >>>> know whether or they used DNT.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ---- quelltextlich e.U. ---- \\ ---- Christian Aistleitner ---- >>>> Companies' registry: 360296y in Linz >>>> Christian Aistleitner >>>> Kefermarkterstrasze 6a/3 Email: [email protected] >>>> 4293 Gutau, Austria Phone: +43 7946 / 20 5 81 >>>> Fax: +43 7946 / 20 5 81 >>>> Homepage: http://quelltextlich.at/ >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
