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 wary 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 made one more proposed tweak in #242 . This brings the total number of occurrences of the word "user" to five, and I believe each of them is warranted, and other terms are lossy or misdirecting.
Note that there are two other places that already changed to something else that I believe should be left as is in this version:
|
|
I stand by all of my comments from January 20th and object in particular to the phrase “good of society” per the rationale given by Florian above. I'll further note for the record that those two comments collectively have indications of support from @jenstrickland, @msporny, @jenstrickland, @chaals, and @capjamesg, so it is clearly not just me and Florian who find the proposed phrasing problematic. |
Relates to issue w3c#211. Addresses concerns with 'society' expressed in: * w3c#211 (comment) * w3c#211 (comment) Addresses concerns with over-abstraction of 'those who use it' expressed in: * w3c#211 (comment)
|
I'm supportive of the PR that @fantasai raised in #244. In response to some of @cwilso's statements above:
Suggestion: "mine and sell detailed sensitive information, such as personally identifiable information"
I don't think referring to another document that got the usage of the word "user" wrong is a strong case for keeping the language as is. I didn't say anything when that document was being written about the word "user" because I thought I was alone in cringing when I read the word. Based on this thread, it does not seem like I'm the only one that thinks we can improve the language around the term. I suggest that we should fix the TAG design principles document, but that's another discussion for another thread, IMHO. If we fix it here first, it becomes easier to fix the TAG design principles document wrt. this issue as it suffers from the same inaccuracy.
All of the latter roles are useful and more accurate. This is fundamentally what I'm arguing for here -- can we be more precise, because we're not being precise when using the word "user" -- multiple people are reading that word and are coming to different conclusions, and that's not a good thing to have happen in a Vision document.
Again, can we be more precise -- we have 3 categories identified in the "Multi-stakeholder" statement... "developers, content creators, and end users." -- the first two are specific, the last one is a catch-all bucket... we might as well be saying: "developers, content creators, and everyone else" (which has the unfortunate side-effect of elevating the first two far above the last one). Maybe something like: Multi-stakeholder: We intentionally involve stakeholders from end to end in building the Web: from the people that create tools to build the web, to the people that create content for the web, to the people that engage with that content. The statement above, which is rough and I'm not particularly attached to, speaks more to the lifecycle of content creation than it does in elevating any particular group... it's people-focused.
Suggest something else like: Incubation: The Web will continue to reach new people using new technologies. |
|
Regarding the "good of society": in the Ethical Web Principles, that phrase is not used. The instances of society:
Notice that it is used differently here. We oppose the idea that "The Web is designed for the good of society." It is designed for the good of people, non-humans, and the planet. This is a critical distinction, especially at this point in time. Consider a definition of society: Oxford, 'the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community'; Merriam-Webster, '1. companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : company 2. a voluntary association of individuals for common ends.' This is where we encounter challenges. We cannot use "society" because it privileges status quo or colonial society over those that are not part of the society, such as indigenous tribes, the poor, homeless, institutionalized, disenfranchised. It's okay when it references how groups of people come together to make our living together productive—although that's certainly fraying at the seams now. I assert that, "The Web is designed for the good of the living, the planet, and future." We web craftfolk must realize our responsibility is to more than just society and includes the impacts to others and our collective future. I also agree with @msporny 's suggestions, with a focus on "people" over their service to capitalism. |
|
in reply to @msporny In general, you will find that multi-change PRs at this point are unlikely to get merged. I will also call out that every suggestion here either makes the text significantly longer or makes it less precise, or has unintended consequences. For example:
On the surface, this seems a rational change. However, in addition to making the text longer, it uses PII as merely one example of the broad definition of "detailed sensitive information" - which does not tie back to individuals at all. The problem we're specifically referring to here has to do with end users of the the Web, and their usage patterns being tracked without knowledge or consent, and the abuses are not all specifically PII. I think this avoids the term "user", but makes it less clear what explicitly we're talking about, and in this case, we are talking about precisely the "consumer" role you were referring to here. I would like to enlist some of the non-English-as-native-language members here, to ask if this is as comprehensible.
Not all of us consider it a fix to attempt to eradicate the term "user" everywhere in our documents, and if we're calling into question whether the EWPs are wrong or not, our architectural layering here is broken. To be clear: I think it is a mistake to eradicate the term user everwhere, as @rhiaro said, sometimes it is the most accurate. I think there is a strong intuitive understanding of what a "web user" is. Yes, there are places where we could be more specific, or less specific, and that's why I've edited a number of usages. But I disagree that we are "getting the usage of the word 'user' wrong." At the very least, I will insist that individual instances not be removed without more concise and accurate terms being used.
Those don't mean the same things: "developer" != "people that create tools to build the web", for example. "End user" is an individual acting in a specific role, as I said: those consuming the web, or interacting with it, not developing it or actively expanding its content (or building tools for it, or many many other things.). "People who engage with that content" is at least accurate, but it is a very abstract way to refer to "end users".
This is absolutely NOT the same statement. The current text is referring to the fact that no matter what, we can expect there will be more people interacting with the Web in the future. (I'd expect more developers, etc too, but users/consumers/participants/interactors in particular.). It's not about reaching new people or different people; it's specifically that the consumer base of the web continues to grow. If pressed to change this phrase I would have to suggest "continue to expand in number of people it reaches, global engagement, and technical breadth." That seems clunkier. @jenstrickland I absolutely do not read in the same subtext of "society" that you do. I don't understand where the implication of "[society] privileges status quo or colonial society over those that are not part of the society, such as indigenous tribes, the poor, homeless, institutionalized, disenfranchised." In particular, the reference points to the EWP, which DOES use this word in nearly identical phrasing (yes, we swap "does not cause harm to society" to "is for the good of society" to sound more positive), and provides this further context: "When we are adding a feature or technology to the web, we will work to prevent or mitigate any harm it might cause society or groups, especially to vulnerable people." @fantasai I would point out the change to "of all society" was explicitly done on @csarven's suggestion, and was explicitly approved of by @msporny, @chrisn, @mgendler , @chaals, @TzviyaSiegman, @capjamesg , and @jenstrickland . Your Jan 20 comment bound two different things together, and it was unclear what people were even agreeing with. At this point, I see multiple points that are being complained about, and it is unclear what the broad opinion around each is, so I'll just have to make one-by-one PRs. |
|
"For the good of society" can often refer to organized society in some negative political circumstances, which is what I think @fantasai and I are itchy about. The authoritarian and fascist directions we're currently experiencing can use that kind of language to wipe out non-status quo concerns. For example, in parts of the U.S. right now they are getting rid of making accommodations for students with disabilities because it is deemed too expensive to support them. It is for the good of the society that they make those students go to schools for students with disabilities. It's happening in Texas right now:
And that's just Texas. Similar efforts for LGBTQIA, POC, women, immigrants, and others are happening in the U.S. and other parts of the world. I appreciate the line, "When we are adding a feature or technology to the web, we will work to prevent or mitigate any harm it might cause society or groups, especially to vulnerable people." I worry that "for the good of society" is too easily taken without considering that line. Being explicit about living beings and the planet sets a different tone than referencing the organizing of people, it reinforces individual liberty versus collective liberty. Michael Sandel, Harvard University professor of political philosophy and author of Justice, defines the following principles of justice:
I think this is what you mean by "good of society". I would even be more comfortable with "welfare of society" than "good of society." I still worry about "society" and prefer to extend to beyond organized humans, to include other life forms and the planet. I lived in Maine and rural West Germany, so maybe I'm just a big ol' tree hugger. 😉 We're in a time of mining bitcoin and data, as well as innovating in AI and other emerging tech, for profit and power, using so much water and power that a lot of life forms could use instead. Setting a vision that we include the good of other life forms and the planet would be a guiding principle—which I think we did in the EWP. |
|
While I understand and appreciate many of the points raised here, I think where we have landed in balancing our usage of "users", "humanity", "society" and specific roles or groups is in a good place. We could debate to no end the proper definition of "society" or how we use language to be inclusive of the planet, but I fear we are just bikeshedding at this point. Our usage of language in the Vision in this area aligns with similar usage/terminology in the EWP, we are using terminology that I think is broadly understandable/translatable to a variety of audiences/languages. This discussion is valuable but I believe we're at a point now where further refinement that blocks publication does not present as much value as publishing the Vision. |
|
Are there any others who work with government public policy (not just implementation)? This is the root of my concerns. I see what we write in the W3C used to reinforce agendas. If Nick Doty is available I'd welcome his input. |
|
@cwilso wrote:
Oof, I don't particularly appreciate those characterizations of the discussion. "Eradicate" is strong language, as is dismissing concerns around power imbalances on the Web as "bikeshedding". Presuming good faith, I know that @cwilso and @wareid are pushing for resolution here because they feel that we've done the best we can given time sensitivity, but please do so without dismissing other's concerns as stronger or weaker than they are.
Yes, we do, and some government officials have a very different notion of "user" than what we in the tech industry have. Do we define what we mean by user anywhere? I checked the EWP and Vision, no terminology/glossary to be found. Seems like an important oversight given that ReSpec/Bikeshed allows cross-linking of glossary terms. Maybe that would help? There's a lot of good text in this thread that goes to lengths to try and clarify what we mean by the term, if we'd just write that down instead of presuming that "user" is some sort of universal, cross-cultural term, that might help.
Just note that there are more than a few of us that disagree with that statement and have been holding our tongues for years on it. It's only now that we've found each other that we're speaking up about it.
I'm willing to move on, as long as @fantasai's concern about "society" (which I find compelling), is addressed. Ideally, we'd write down exactly what we mean by "user" somewhere. Know that "moving on" here means that I (and I presume others) will just re-raise the issue later, but agree that publishing the Vision (even if imperfect) is probably the best we can do given that we do want to publish a Vision sooner than later. |
|
@msporny I do want to be clear that I share a lot of the concern about this language, and have appreciated the discussion here in improving it. There's a point where we need to draw a line, us standards folk are wired to seek perfection and I think we run the risk of missing the forest for the trees. It's not so much about time-sensitivity for me as much as it is about the need for us to have this document established. I do think once its published, we should open this discussion up again, we should seek more input, but I don't want this to block publication and I appreciate that you share that desire too :). |
|
As I also work in government and study public administration, the "good of society" and "users" relate to issues of government systems. I realize we have members of forms of government other than democracy. I am aware that democracy is currently at risk in countries around the globe. Being mindful of the impact of our choice of words is critical, as not everyone has access to the web, power, agency, and such. @msporny @fantasai and I are expressing concerns with these terms exactly because of this. We three are also POC, if I perceive correctly. My lived experience is a major influence in my concern. Getting effective documentation of the mission, vision, and principles of an organization that has influence around the world is important. I worked in private sector technology, too. I know "user" is a role in relation to technology, yet we don't consider the lives impacted like second-hand smoke… those we exploit, harm, ignore, leave behind and those could be considered at this juncture. I know that "society" is a collective of people in many minds, yet it also serves as a tool by the powerful to marginalize. Apologies for the delays on "bike shedding." That's certainly not the intention. I, for one, am worried about the direction of the world and technology and see this as an opportunity to light a path that does not continue to marginalize and harm. |
I am feeling, given that I've reduced quite a bit the use of the term "user", particularly from prominent places, that removing that term everywhere is, in fact, what is being argued for. My apologies if my choice of word seems overbearing; that is what the feedback here was evoking in me.
I was not dismissing anyone's concerns, nor saying their concerns were weak. "I don't agree with your change" or "I have different perceptions" is not the same as saying "your concern is invalid."
We have had a W3C Glossary for a long time, and "user" is defined there: https://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/user.html?keywords=user.
Nothing is ever solved for all time here. :). I fully expect someone will come along and completely rewrite this document. @jenstrickland said:
...and those terms do not necessarily carry the same implications for everyone. Each of our lived experiences will leave us with biased perceptions, and we cannot avoid every one. (Personally, I will never be able to use the word "mosaic" in a normal usage.). (Also, please be advised that frequent reference to the current political landscape is deeply triggering to some of us. I know it's not possible to ignore or completely avoid, but please don't lean into it so hard.)
I would hope you realize that this is precisely why we started this work, and precisely why I've been working on it for four and a half years. If the wording wasn't important, we would have been done at least four years ago.
Jen, this isn't just "bike shedding" - it's that multiple individuals each trying to pick what words sound perfect according to their lived experiences will have different words, and they will sometimes give directly conflicting guidance (sometimes even from the same person. I will point out you, among others, explicitly supported Sarven's suggestion of "for the good of society" when it was suggested.). The Vision will never be perfect according to any one person; it needs to be good enough for everyone, and good enough for now. Though the point of having a Vision is absolutely to function as a guiding light for positive direction, we cannot prevent every possible misinterpretation of every phrase and still have a readable document. We do need to try to balance out perception and bias through the lens of many people's lived experiences, and try to get a readable guiding light document - that's what we've tried very hard to do, for years now. I will admit to a strong bias of not wanting to abstract everything, and end up with a document that says "Do all the good things and none of the bad things, for all life on earth" - because that is not possible, and it too suffers from perception bias. I want to be clear that your (all of you) feedback here is valuable, and it is not being judged as "weak". When you replace a word or phrase that has unintended implications to one set of people with another word or phrase, that replacement may come with baggage to a different set of people, and we're trying to navigate all of these complexities. I'm stepping back for a fresh look at this, and will respond again in a day or two. |
|
Just to clarify, I work in government and see the impact of the W3C words in efforts to progress/counter the chaos during my day-to-day. I know we have people from other government types and welcome their input. I hope for something that works across all kinds of orgs, sectors, etc. I don't necessarily think we need to wipe out the word "user" everywhere, just be mindful of when we use it and any implications. "Society" is the one that makes me grab the antacids most. |
|
All thread participants: please review PR#250, which has been merged. I believe this should resolve outstanding concerns. |
|
My apologies for needing to say something outside of the discussion. I referred to three people as POC, and later realized I have no idea how others identify. I used an ignorant assumption and presumed anyone that didn't seem like X as POC. That was ignorant and wrong of me. I've apologized to the individuals (no one raised it with me; it nagged at me afterwards) and hope they'll forgive me. I tried to understand what was different, why we seemed to differ from others. It wasn't okay. I'm sorry to everyone here for my error and hope you'll show me grace, especially those I painted in my own failure to process my ignorance. |
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: