Is the term "users" the right way to refer to people that contribute to the Web's existence? #211
Comments
|
Hey Manu, Thanks for the review. I think I understand where you're coming from, but I think users is the appropriate term here for a couple of reasons. First, it's commonly shared language. I won't go down the rabbit hole too far, but as an example the web platform design principles uses the framing that we follow here of users being the first amongst our constituencies: https://www.w3.org/TR/design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies Second, I think that other terms such as 'people' or 'participants' are too specific. The first example that comes to mind is that there are organizations that act as the 'end user' whether it be civil rights groups or companies. I think you get close to touching this with "corporations (but really, these are just groups of people in a formal operating structure)" Taking off my chair hat for a second: Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that take. |
|
I don't have the connotation of "user" with "spectator"; I think of using as an active term, connoting active participation or manipulation. If there is some other way we should highlight the active participation of users we can, but given the rampant use of the term across the design principles an Ethical Web Principles, I think we would need to revamp those too. (The EWP does say "The web is for all people", but it then describes that section in terms of "users" too.) I wouldn't want to say "contributors" in its place, though, because I would point out even spectators are a type of web user; passive consumption of content is one use case for the Web. It definitely should not be the only one, though. |
|
+1 in favour of changing. If I may give it a shot, my suggestion towards a PR would be the following with some variations:
We believe the World Wide Web should be inclusive and respectful to everyone
The Web is designed for the good of society.
The Web must be safe for individuals and communities.
W3C leads the community in defining a World Wide Web that puts people first
We put the needs of individuals and communities first: above authors, publishers, implementers, paying W3C Members, or theoretical purity.
We intentionally involve stakeholders from end to end in building the Web: developers, content creators, and people using the web. Our work will not be dominated by any person, company, or interest group. |
|
+1 to changing. User, individual, community might be appropriate terms in context. However my argument is slightly higher level. I don't think it is enough to say that the W3C cares about users because that isn't a strong enough statement. The W3C should instead invoke a high purpose and I think that is most easily found in the human rights framework. Two citations:
|
|
Yes, strong +1 to @csarven's change suggestions, exactly along the lines of what I was thinking. Also strong +1 to @mallory's reasoning as well. Words are important, especially in a vision, and if we continue to use the detached and sterile "user" we will continue to fail to accurately convey what we care about. What @csarven has written above captures the intent of the vision with more accuracy and is more compelling than just repeating the word "user" throughout. @cwilso and @mgendler I understand that both of you might not read much that is negative into the word "user", and perhaps that's a cultural or generational thing, but it's a word that is affective-neutral at best and disdainful at worst to some of us. It is not a good word because it has multiple meanings and because some of those meanings are negative. Compare that to "person" or "community", which doesn't trigger the same sort of cringe from some of us. @mgendler wrote:
Oh sure, but my point was that those are just collections of people; they're "communities" of people as @csarven put it above. We do need to make sure we serve their interests, and calling out organizations explicitly would be better than lumping them into "user", but we should not make the mistake that corporations have the same standing as people. @mgendler wrote:
Oh yes, I'm aware... and it's not good in most of the places it is used :). I don't agree with its usage in the Design Principles document either. I cringe when reading any standards document that uses the word "user" (for the reasons above). It conveys a sense that we don't really see those individuals, those users, as equals or the pinnacle of whom we serve. "Users" don't have many rights, typically. For example, "End-User License Agreements" are often designed to strip rights away from the user and rarely establish positive rights for the "user" (beyond those required by law). Additionally, we don't call certain legislation "User Rights", we call it "Human Rights".... "We the People"... not "We the Users". Now, I'm not so naive to think that changing this word is going to fundamentally shift how W3C operates, but given the state of the Web today, every shift in a positive direction, even if it is a nudge, has net benefit. We need to humanize those we serve and "user" doesn't do it for some of us. |
|
I'm also supportive of @csarven's suggested phrasing. |
|
I find myself being swayed here, thank you all for the feedback. I'd like to hear from a few more people especially if anyone has a stronger case than mine for sticking with 'users' for consistency. Thanks to all for elucidating the argument. |
|
We did actually review the EWP for "users" and it only remains when used intentionally, ie. when there is a "user of something in particular" in mind. w3ctag/ethical-web-principles#34 |
|
I'm not against this in principle, as the motivation seems valuable to me, and denizens of the web should indeed not be seen as primarily passive. However, I'm not on board with some of the specific changes proposed.
OK. This goes beyond shifting the perspective from passive users to active participants, and also implies being inclusive and respectful to people who thus far have had nothing to do with the web, but that seems appropriate.
Seems reasonable, though that depends on how this sentence is read. In the sense of "people over profits" or similar considerations, sure, the proposed phrasing would be an improvement. But the original phrasing could also been seen as a call to the priority of constituencies, in which case, see the later point.
Not objecting to this one, but I don't find it effective either. Replacing "users" by "people using the web" uses more words, but doesn't change the perspective away from the limited perspective that can be implied by user/use/using.
Replacing individuals with a collective is not equivalent, and can be used to defend harming the individuals by claiming it is for a greater good. Many totalitarian regimes (on any side of the political spectrum) justify individual oppression and human rights violation by claiming what matters is what is good for society as a whole. I'm not saying that's the intent behind this proposed phrasing, but it opens a door I'd rather keep shut.
Same as above. If a community has some bigoted hateful beliefs that could be undermined by open access to information, people who like that status quo could argue that access to the web would not be safe for the integrity of that community. If a despotic regime might be undermined by freedom of expression, they could argue that access to the web puts their society at risk of seditious people undermining public order which makes their communities less safe…
|
|
@frivoal wrote:
Yes, all good points made in your response and we do need to be responsive to them. I had the same concerns in the back of my mind. We certainly do not want to be inclusive of bigotry, totalitarianism, naked capitalism, pervasive surveillance, and other things that harm individuals (and society)... there are all sorts of things covered in the EWP that we are not tolerant of. So, +1 to @frivoal's fine tuning and +1 to moving away from "users" when we can be more precise about the statement (which is often the case). @frivoal if you'd suggest some alternatives, that don't use user, that might help us move through this faster as you tend to have a very good grasp on balancing the right sort of language. |
|
I was inspired by Weaving the Web, Berners-Lee, 1999, Chapter 10: Web of People, p. 123, where he states:
FWIW, and of course minding the distinction between the Web and W3C. IMHO, the W3C's vision ultimately aligns with this perspective. The mere use of "society" here reflects the ambition to build our shared humanity together. So, if "society" in:
risks being stretched to support arguments for totalitarianism (an interpretation I acknowledge as possible but do not endorse ), then "users" in:
or anything similar doesn't particularly clarify the matter either. After all, which users? in what context? The Web is designed not only for the good of its current users but especially for those who are not yet users, so that when they join, they feel welcome. A more inclusive web requires acknowledging diverse societal challenges and creating space for individuals and communities, hopefully will soon join the people using the web. IMHO, the intention behind EWP's "the web is for all people" is aligned with the Web of People passage by TimBL. To me, "for all people" is synonymous with "society". If "society" is potentially problematic here, then so is "for all people". Even the very first sentence in EWP Introduction uses "society":
I can't think of a more fitting word than "society" (where applicable) for the Vision document but I'd gladly welcome any suggestion for a better term. |
|
I think the changes proposed by @csarven go in the right direction, for the reasons others have mentioned. |
|
+1 to @csarven's proposal |
|
+1 to @csarven's proposal. I think we should avoid using the term "users" to refer to the people that use the web. "Users" feels distant; it feels academic. In contrast, everyone who works on and with, and everyone who uses the web, is a unique person with their own needs. With that in mind, we should use language that emphasizes the humanity at the core of the web wherever possible. On a related note, I just published a blog post in which I advocate more broadly for technologists to use "human experience" to refer to the experience people have with technology, instead of "user experience." I plan to use "human experience" in my own work. |
|
+1 to @csarven's approach. In the Vision for the Web:
I wonder if we might change "users" to people-first language and include the environment which people rely on. For example:
And in the Vision for the W3C:
I would recommend that "users" there adjust to people-first language, much like we do in the disability community. Using "users" we ascribe a utility. I realize that "people who use the Web" may not seem different. It does assert the agency that people have. I also think we are at a point in time where it is vital that the W3C emphasize the home that we all share in our vision and mission statements. I'm thinking something like the following might accurately express the spirit:
|
|
with merged change, chair+editors think we should close this. |
|
I disagree with the merged changes, and thus with closing this issue. In particular, I find the change from "good of its users" to "good of society" to be problematic for the reasons @frivoal cited above:
Regarding @msporny's point that "the very first sentence in EWP Introduction uses 'society'", yes, it's true. But it uses it in the phrase "an equitable, informed, and interconnected society", which is not subject to the type of problematic interpretation that "the good of society" is. This isn't even a historical problem, we're seeing "the good of society" currently and increasingly used to justify all kinds of Internet censorship and cyberstalking programs, etc. I would also prefer if we could find more direct language: "those who use it" anchors on a completely amorphous pronoun that's not even definitively human, and relies on a subordinate clause consisting of two more amorphous pronouns and a verb to define its antecedent. It ends up feeling more distant, imho, from the people it's meant to refer to than even "users" does. As @jenstrickland says, let's put the focus on people. @csarven suggested "everyone" here, let's use it:
@jenstrickland suggested "people" here, let's use it:
|
|
+1 to @fantasai's (and @frivoal's) concerns, they resonate with me as well. I was a bit dismayed that the PR didn't go as far as I wanted it to (to make the focus on individual people and to remove dehumanizing language that can be interpreted as individuals purely as consumers/users). That said, I took any change in a positive direction as a win (so, thank you for that), but given that others are still not happy with the language not going far enough, +1 to keep pushing to improve the language along the lines that @fantasai, @jenstrickland, and @csarven have suggested. |
|
Thanks everyone for the depth of feedback here. I'm going to ask whether or not @fantasai and @msporny (and perhaps some of the other tagged/participating folks) would consider this a blocker to moving forward? I ask for two reasons: 1) I do think the most recent changes were made with a bit of compromise in mind, trying to find the happy medium between different opinions. I want to be clear, I don't think this is good enough to say it's closed forever, but I do think we've reached a pretty solid point for this version of the Vision, and I would like to propose deferring this to Vision2 if no-one considers this a blocker. |
|
If I am the only person standing in the way, I will yield to the group and say that this is not a blocker for me. I care more about the Vision being updated and published than the confusion created by using the word "user".
Ah, so that resonates with me. You're using the most generous definition of the word "user", which is what I expect most of the people suggesting that there is no issue with "user" to be doing. Yes, we are not prioritizing publishers and developers above people that engage with the web to go about their daily business and we don't want to lose that when we update the language. As a compromise (which, again, I'd rather not compromise unless I'm the only person that finds issue with the updated language), perhaps we should explain what we mean by "user" when we use it in this document? We're not talking about publishers, we're not talking about developers, we are talking about the majority of the individuals on the planet that get utility out of the Web as they go about their daily lives. |
|
I feel deeply uncomfortable with "users."
I am moved to establish a vision that prioritizes humanity over individual gain. Tim Berners-Lee's original vision of a free web is fading every day as everything becomes privatized and human rights are taken away. It's been a dangerous week in the US as we join other countries that, well, I think you know. I work in the public sector. Users is a term many of us moved away from, in favor of taxpayers, Veterans, community members, citizens, the public, etc. We can focus on principles of justice, as Michael Sandel spells out in his book Justice: work for the good of society as a whole, protect the freedom to pursue interests, and cultivate virtue amongst society. Society can be a loaded word, as noted by @fantasai. The word "users" reminds me of the film, Blade, where users are essentially bags to feed the vampires. I used to be hyperbolic, yet data now supports that. Can we dedicate the vision to commit to TBL's original inspiration? |
|
Maybe "people who use the web for (gosh, a lot of things), as opposed to businesses". So messy. |
I think I understand and agree with the sentiment, but not the way it is expressed. Gains for an individual at without regards for other individuals is definitely bad, and each fighting for themself, regardless of consequences for others is absolutely not something our phrasing should be supporting (but I don't think the original phrasing did). Supposed gains for the collective without regards for any individual aren't gains either. The collective is composed of individuals. It is precisely because I am concerned by the desire of plutocrats to appeal to some imagined collective good, at the expense of untold suffering for countless actual individuals that I am weary of replacing phrasing that calls for caring for individuals with caring for society / humanity… It's not possible to care for humanity without caring for humans. But it is very possible to pretend to. There is something passive about the word user that I think would be nice to move away from, but I would rather we took care to preserve two things:
|
|
@frivoal Yes, I see you understand my aim. In the part where I spoke of esteemed Harvard political philosophy professor Sandel's Justice I tried to clarify it. His balance of individual freedom to pursue interest paired with the good of the public and cultivation of moral virtues, all are needed for justice. We work for a just web. I know it's important to publish, yet I also think we're making progress towards something better than "users" and if we step away from private sector lenses, it can be useful. |
I've performed an independent review of https://www.w3.org/TR/2024/NOTE-w3c-vision-20241018/ , which is excellent. Thank you to those that put in the time to create the document. It captures what I've seen W3C doing for many years now and places those observations into a coherent narrative.
The only bit that was a bit jarring to read was that we keep referring to people as "users". Users have a number of connotations, but the most concerning one is that they are spectators... they just "consume" and that is not aligned with the Vision of the Web. It's a tool for human collaboration, which means producing AND consuming content.
We must also tread lightly, because there are other types of "users" of the Web... corporations (but really, these are just groups of people in a formal operating structure), traditional software (but again, usually operating on behalf of one or more individuals), and most recently AI that approaches and will quite possibly surpass human intelligence. Are we building the Web for an AI agent with super human intelligence? Are their needs more important than human needs? Are they just like software, ultimately acting on behalf of people.
IOW, "user" is the wrong word to use throughout the document; it evokes ambivalence and/or consumerism. If our priority of constituencies places people first, we need to humanize the language more.
Some alternate (and imperfect) choices include:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: