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 <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
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 <ori(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Aaron Halfaker
<ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
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
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
_______________________________________________
Analytics mailing list
Analytics(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics