Add Audience section #25
Conversation
Closes w3ctag#13
index.bs
Outdated
| * **User agent developers** who want to align implementations with design and privacy principles that prioritize their users. | ||
| * **Regulators and policymakers** who need criteria to assess whether user agents fulfill their duties to users. | ||
| * **Technical authors** who want to reuse or reference these concepts in their own specifications or documentation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the last sentence is overstepping:
| * **User agent developers** who want to align implementations with design and privacy principles that prioritize their users. | |
| * **Regulators and policymakers** who need criteria to assess whether user agents fulfill their duties to users. | |
| * **Technical authors** who want to reuse or reference these concepts in their own specifications or documentation. | |
| * ** Editors/Technical writers**, who need to normatively or informatively reference the concept herein in their own specifications or documentation. | |
| * **User agent implementers**, who want to align implementations with design and privacy principles as described in the manner described in this document. | |
| * **Regulators and policymakers**, who need understand what constitutes a user agent. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Technical authors" is intentional. It covers both spec writers as well as anyone generally contributing to specification development. But it also includes anyone that is writing a document (not necessarily a "spec") that needs to refer to these concepts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about "technical writers"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That could work too. My interpretation is that "technical authors" is a bit broader and also covers "technical writers". Authors captures spec writers, standards contributors, and generally anyone defining or referencing technical documentation, including writers of docs/guides/manuals for users and other developers. Besides, I think the definition here is adequate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either writers or authors works for me. Marcos also made at least two other suggestions in his patch, and it would be good to resolve that too. I don't feel strongly about either, but:
- "in the manner described in this document." is a little vague, though accurate
- I think this document does more than just explain "what constitutes a user agent.": it at least expresses the norms that the technical community has over how they should act. I'm comfortable with this document being full on advice to regulators, but also fine with moderating that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm comfortable with this document being full on advice to regulators
I'm not super comfortable... no one us are lawmakers or lawyers and I worry it will come back to bite us in the 🍑.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jyasskin , ack!
@marcoscaceres , bite us how?
Aside: If there's an argument for including web developers as an audience, there's at least as strong a case for including regulators, since both can benefit from understanding these principles.
To be clear, this document sets technical and ethical duties, not legal obligations. It can serve as a reference for understanding web community expectations but is not intended as binding or advisory law. We can improve it to avoid ambiguity that might lead to misinterpretation.
I'd argue that the TAG/W3C should take this opportunity to rise to the occasion, so to speak.
I've updated the definition based on above to clarify but if that's not aligned with our goal, am completely open to discuss.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought "in the manner described in this document" is redundant. It's already implied by the section, and there's nothing else it could refer to.
I really like the proposed "prioritize their users" because it signals the user-centric duty up front. Also aligns with the priority of constituencies.
Co-authored-by: Marcos Cáceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
|
@jyasskin , I'm content with the current state of this PR but you and others may want to have a final look. |
Co-authored-by: Marcos Cáceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
SHA: 698bc20 Reason: push, by csarven Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
3 participants
Closes #13
Adding this section after the Abstract because it doesn't fit elsewhere at the moment. If we introduce an Introduction section, the contents of this section can be moved there.
Preview | Diff