Meeting minutes
<MichaelChampion__> Proposed discussion questions are in https://github.com/WebStdFuture/Users1st/blob/main/BreakoutQuestions.md
<MichaelChampion__> https://github.com/WebStdFuture/Users1st/blob/main/BreakoutQuestions.md has the questions I'll propose ...
mchampion: I'm currently affiliated with the OpenJS Foundation, but not representing them today; I'm retired.
… The questions I want to discuss today were inspired by Mark Nottingham.
… In short, are there a set of users we can enumerate, and how can we make sure W3C is focused on their needs? What happens if they aren't?
… I hope some of you have read Mark's blog, or RFC8890
… is this something we can address?
R12a: can you summarize the RFC?
<weiler> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8890
<astearns> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8890.html
<tantek> https://github.com/WebStdFuture/Users1st/blob/main/BreakoutQuestions.md
<tzviya> abstract: This document explains why, when a conflict cannot be avoided, the IETF considers end users as its highest priority concern.
mchampion: summary: the Internet is for users, and not like most of us (i.e. working for big companies, actively working on big standards)
… the goal is to make users' needs the highest priority.
… the part I found most interesting was at the end: handling conflicting end users' needs
… it's a little disingenuous to say "we speak for users" when most of us understand a lot more of the complexity of the web than most users.
… Do we recognize there are problems when the standards don't treat end users as the highest priority?
<weiler> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8890#section-4.4
<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/
tzviya: a lot of people at hte W3C are thinking about this: the TAG has their Ethical WEb principles.
<csarven> https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/
tzviya: a related subject is the HTML Design principles. When we say "we know the web best", do we really?
… we don't know who all our users are. This comes up when we discuss diversity too.
… there are people without great connectivity, e.g.
<tantek> +1
tzviya: There are a lot of users in the real world. A good question that came up yesterday in the ethics discussion was "What characteristics of the web are not a good fit for us?" and what could we do to address that?
+!
+1
mchampion: the last year or so of my time at Microsoft, they really started focusing on user research. I don't know if that's something the W3C could do, but it would be a good mindset.
weiler: I agree we need to do this.
… but I want to throw out a conflict out. I hear the web advertising throw out a conflicting view of what user's needs are.
… I'm seeing some very contentious arguements, with both sides using "user" language.
… some centralization\/consolidation can be good.
… with those cautions, I think the W3C failed a few years ago with EME. The Director came down against the users, in favor of some other interests.
mchampion: not only do people wrap themselves in the cloak of users, the real users may have different concerns.
… EME is a great example. Users want free content (platform?), but users also want to watch Netflix.
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to point out that actually we are users (maybe not typical)
mchampion: the best I can summarize hte IETF conversation, it's "have this conversation, don't just presume you know"
dsinger: I don't think we should be too shy - we are users as well. we don't represent all kinds of users, of course. we are one of the classes of users. There was a session yesterday about online harms on the internet. There was a question about if we were designing for the users, big companies, children, ??
<Alan> +1 to dsinger
<astearns> evaluating who "speaks for the user" can likely benefit from reading on intersectionality
<tantek> +1 astearns
<jyasskin> +1 astearns
dsinger: we are going to see a lot of people claiming the cloak of speaking for users without actua,lly working it through.
<tzviya> inviting a diverse membership will do a lot for intersectionality
joshco: tzviya mentioned diversity. One thing that can be done is identify target groups; the more groups you have the more diversity you have.
… W3C could do outreach to marginalized groups.
<tzviya> daily shout out for W3C's Inclusiveness and Diversity CG https://github.com/w3c/idcg
joshco: reach out to LGBTQ+, minorities, etc. They can help connect and identify people who are technical enough to participate in e.g. a tech council.
<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/community/idcg/
gendler: I'm Max Gendler, from NYT. I wanted to go back to Sam's point on conflict about multiple groups taking the user cloak. Usually when this happens, it's because they're measuring different things (e.g. privacy vs funding/click-through rates)_
… which one of these does the user really want?
… so the number 1 practical issue is how do we frame the user?
+1
<weiler> [Max's examples were: a site measuring "a user stays on our site longer because they like these ads" v. an ad agency measuring click-through rates as their measure of success]
plh: we certainly talk about users differently. Generational experiences are a good example (older generations tend to have a smaller tolerance for privacy warnings, e.g.)
jyasskin: it's helpful that everyone is wrapping themselves in this flag, even if it's frustrating. it can give a better basis for conversation.
<weiler> [it may also be misleading and less honest]
jyasskin: users should be first; how do we make progress in judging which user desire comes first?
<astearns> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8890.html#name-handling-conflicting-end-us
mchampion: I keep mentioning section 4 - you can't just "speak for users", you have to identify what the needs are.
<joshco> how do we address conflicting user views.. part of my point was to engage with those communities, and letting them choose who represents and speaks for them them
chris: one of the most important pieces is to refine user benefits, so we can trade them off agasint each other. defaults matter a lot - more than anything. people should be enabled to make different decisions, but defaults powerful. need a detailed...
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note that measuring "click-through rates" is no better methodology than slot-machine manufacturers measuring pulls
<tzviya> +1 to cwilso
chris: low level picture of what is best for the user. e.g. privacy. We weren't thinking about that in the beginning, but we need to nail it down now.
tantek: I wanted to respond to a couple of things. the framing that users "must like it more because they're clicking more"
… is dangerous and is how slot-machine manufacturers and cigarette companies treat their "users". This is in effect addictive behavior; it's exploitive, not representative of what the user really "wants".
<gendler> +1 to tantek
tantek: trading off surveillance of users for ??? isn't a good idea. This isn't a good idea - it's patronizing and disrespectful to treat users like lab rats to be poked, prodded, observed, and measured; the session yesterday on ethical web was great.
… alan stearns mentioned we should consider intersectionality: I totally agree with that.
<caribou> Most end users have no idea about privacy issues
tantek: we should be evaluating the web and w3c as well, how we make technologies for the web by "how does the system treat those who are most vulnerable?"
+1
… (we should also be assessing the W3C, not just the web)
mallory Knodel (CDT): the general point I haven't seen made explicitly is the distinction between taking action/setting standards for the user, vs for the public interest
… the web should be designed for everyone, not just current users.
… framing needs as "in the public interest" can be a good way to do this - it incentivizes the long-term good of humanity, not just the short term of the user's immediate needs.
+1
… I also support evidence-based investigation.
… I don't want to conclude an approach, but don't just look at the immediate problems.
<astearns> +1 to Mallory's point that non-users also need to be considered
<tzviya> +1 to mallory
annette: I'm coming at this from a national laboratory, not somewhere that is "making money". The W3C should be about making the web a good place
… by virtue of becomign a designer, you disqualify yourself from being a "user"
… user-center design is good, but doesn't necessarily get us the best decisions.
… IETF's "internet is for users" is about the person behind the buttons. we may be trying to get people to click more, but we're doing it to try to get more money... this isn't necesarily serving users.
… we shouldn't just be satifying "how do we get the user to click"
<tantek> s/most marginalized/most vulnerable, considering different levels of privilege, and power disparities/
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to ask about principles and values rather than people
dsinger: this is a super-important debate. There is only one Web - how people use it isn't up to us. I want to try a contrarian view re:section 4. Values are only helpful when they guide us. Do we prefer truth, or free speech? Do we prefer orderly society or the ability to do new things/
… who decides what is good for users?
… is addictive behavior something we should protect against?
… we need to prioritize our principles and values, not just have a set.
mchampion: identifying the priority of values is important.
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to make good point
<weiler> chris: love this conversation
cwilso: Love this conversation. Absolutely agree with prioritization of principles, not just constituencies.
cwilso: I've had a post-it stuck to my monitor since a conversation with Tzviya
cwilso: “Make the Web a good place, not just a technically sound one”
<tantek> +1
cwilso: We need to prioritize some principles, we're going to have to figure some of these out
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to comment on role of W3C in stewardship
cwilso: not just focus on good technically-sound things as we build the WEb
tzviya: Wanted to comment on priority of prinicples, need to be very cautious
tzviya: Free speech vs truth gets into very complicated ground.
tzviya: Be careful not to colonialize the Web
tzviya: This is a great philosophical conversation, but we're talking a lot about theory and about the Web, and not about W3C.
tzviya: What is the role of W3C here?
tzviya: I believe W3C is responsible for the stewardship of the Web
<gendler> +! to tzviya on colonialize
tzviya: I quoted earlier a talk yesterday which I encourage ppl to look at
tzviya: What's not a great fit for W3C?
tzviya: What are we doing that is not driving us towards a Web that's for end-users / a public service?
r12a: Richard Ishida, Internationalization at W3C
r12a: My job is about trying to figure out what users need and try to deliver that
<astearns> +1 to the point of not setting up dichotomies of values - better to acknowledge multiple conflicting values than decide which is best
r12a: In i18n, W3C still needs to reach out to parts of the world with less involvement. SE Aisa, Africa, etc.
<jes_daigle> It is difficult to represent users when the diversity of the W3C doesn't reflect the population. Those of us involved in w3c are at an advantage that the vast majority doesn't have and we need to be mindful of how that may skew our perspective. We shouldn't be making presumptions on what users need.
r12a: They use mobile phone with limited bandwidth, for example
r12a: We need to focus our technology for those users as well
r12a: On a sort of practical level as well, problem of not knowing which users to follow is a nice problem to have
r12a: You need to find a channel first for users to talk to W3C
r12a: And don't know how to do that
r12a: Should make it a lot easier for ppl to specify their requirements, than to participate in a WG to develop solutions
<Zakim> caribou, you wanted to mention that users 1st does not necessarily mean asking the end users
r12a: Lower the barrier to the user community to express what they want to W3C
caribou: We're discussing things outside scope of W3C, like "good web" that seems impossible to define what it means
<tantek> "specify their requirements" is the wrong question IMO. ask users what is their experience? what are the harms they've experienced? how are they actually using the web and how is it inspiring them and how is it letting them down? how would they like to use the web?
caribou: I think that a neutral Web would be good enough, in scope for W3C.
caribou: Initial point I want to make is, asking end-user is not going to get us somewhere useful
caribou: Most users don't know about privacy and security issues, for example
caribou: It's our job to do that
caribou: Taking into account end-users doesn't necessarily mean asking end-users
caribou: I think involving more end-users might not be the right strategy
Avneesh: Avneesh Singh, member of W3C AB, work for DAISY Consortium, similar org to W3C except that we serve ppl with disabilities
Avneesh: So we have gone through such questions also in our org
Avneesh: Personally, wrt conflict of interest, it is true that when there's conflict of interest we should look to prioritize users
Avneesh: But how to operate this
Avneesh: Agents of user, or other device manufacturer or ?
Avneesh: Opinion becomes greatly colored by their business interest
Avneesh: We went through this in DAISY with producers of accessible books and tech
<annette_g> If we want to think of prioritizing prinicples over consituencies, we still need a guide for selecting those principles. End-users-in-the-long-term is a useful tool for selecting principles.
Avneesh: Finally organizations that represent end suers, like National Organization of the Blind
Avneesh: We were able to get so many new strategies
Avneesh: We can start taking steps at the high level
Avneesh: Leave the philosophy, and try to engage the user organizations
Avneesh: Some aspects involving ppl with disabilities, for example
Avneesh: organizations representing colored populations
Avneesh: organizations representing organizations ppl in Africa
Avneesh: When we have more involvement from organizations of this kind
Avneesh: we can move more towards user priorities
<igarashi_> +1 to caribou in loving more end use might not be the good strategy
Avneesh: Instead of big companies defining the needs of users, engage these organizations to define
Avneesh: These are starting steps, we can dig further as we go along
<astearns> +1 to Avneesh on taking small concrete steps
MichaelChampion__: Many ppl mentioned this is a philosophical conversation. Want to think about what W3C can concretely do to address
<Zakim> weiler, you wanted to ask how we would prevent a redux of the EME debacle
weiler: As we look at legal entity, what can/should we do to make sure that our leadership in that legal entity is selected with awareness of how they look at these issues?
weiler: and make sure that leadership feels some independence, and is not beholden to only the Members?
<cwilso> +1
weiler: What can we do concretely there?
plh: Looking for answers at this point...
igarashi_: Igarashi, Sony, W3C AB
igarashi_: Difficult issue. Very hard to decide what is good for the end user
igarashi_: Emphasis that each organization that each member, prioritize end user first
igarashi_: but hard to say what is good for user
igarashi_: I consider that one way... diversity discussion and inclusion
igarashi_: we need to gather the voice of various member organization
igarashi_: not just ?
igarashi_: not just gender diversity, but international /geogrpahical / regional / cultural diversity
igarashi_: good for discussion of what is good for end user
MichaelChampion__: Want to get thumbs up / down on some items I've proposed
<dsinger> +1000 to discussing values and principles
MichaelChampion__: 1. Should W3C have a discussion on what it's core values are and document on what the priority of this? Is that a useful conversation
<cwilso> +1
<florian_irc> +1
<plh> +1
<jes_daigle> +1
<Justine_> +1
<tzviya> +1
<robin> +1
<hdv> +1
<Karima> +1
<tantek> +1
<weiler> +1
<gendler> +1
<r12a> +1
<annette_g> +1
<igarashi_> +1 with diversity and inclusion discussion
<csarven> +1
<jeff> +1 (lurking on this session)
fantasai: I think those should be separate quesitons.
fantasai: 100% agree to document core values.
<tantek> Since Core Values has been mentioned, I'm going to make a pitch for the Friday session on this topic: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/breakout-schedule.html#focusvalues
fantasai: prioritization, however, might vary on case-by-case basis, depending on how exactly they interact in a particular issue
MichaelChampion__: 2. Do we see W3C as a technical organization, and this out of scope, or is W3C shifting towards advocacy?
<robin> there is no such thing as a purely technical organisation
<cwilso> +1
<tantek> tech is not neutral
<hdv> not out of scope, cannot be just technical
<igarashi_> +1 to robin
<caribou> WebFoundation is better suited for advocacy
<gendler> +1 to robin and tantek
<tzviya> +1 to robin
<dsinger> No, we should not advocate on public questions, but we should inform public debate, and we should have values that guide our own decisions and choices
fantasai: I disagree that W3C should be an advocacy organization, should not be advocating for political or organizational change outside W3C.
fantasai: but should espouse its core values and integrate them into its technology
fantasai: and teaching people how to use it and why it matters
<tantek> There is no such thing as "purely technical"
MichaelChampion__:
florian_irc: Previous question was a false dichotomoy, do tech or advocacy?
florian_irc: Tech isn't divorced from values.
<annette_g> +100 to Florian
<jes_daigle> +1 florian
<gendler> +1 to Florian
florian_irc: When we bulid tech that supports a11y and i18n, this isn't value-free
<hdv> +1 to Florian
florian_irc: so values vs. tech is a false question
<jyasskin> We should consciously _receive_ advocacy and incorporate it into technical specs.
florian_irc: Agree with fantasai, should incorporate values into tech, not do advocacy directly.
<caribou> it's just that some areas don't need advocacy for them to be taken care of?
Mallory: Agree. There are consequences for technical decisions we make, the quesiton is do we consider those consequences or do we ignore them?
MichaelChampion__: Thanks for conversation, found it enlightening
<annette_g> +1 to Mallory
<tzviya> +1 mallory
MichaelChampion__: Don't know what the next steps might be, but did set up a GH if anyone wants to post issues there or propose documents
<jyasskin> https://github.com/WebStdFuture/Users1st/
<plh>
<cwilso> https://github.com/WebStdFuture/
MichaelChampion__: Hope ppl on AB and Team and in Groups think about these questions and try to put some of the things we learned today into practice
<dsinger> https://github.com/WebStdFuture/Users1st/blob/main/BreakoutQuestions.md
<tantek> link: https://github.com/WebStdFuture/Users1st
<csarven> That was great, thanks all!