Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03

The same for me.

Thank you
Laura

2013/8/26 James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>

> I am happy to review the confidence draft.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 27/08/2013, at 6:28 AM, Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I support the adoption.  I'm confident that we can get some reviewers!
> >
> > -roger marshall.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:54 AM
> > To: James Winterbottom
> > Cc: GEOPRIV WG
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft
> draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03
> >
> > I think these are both obviously in scope of our charter, so if the
> authors want to rev them, we can do a consensus call for WG adoption and
> see what we get. It would be helpful to get a sense of who is willing to
> review these drafts if we do adopt them.
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> > On Aug 25, 2013, at 7:59 PM, James Winterbottom <
> a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Do we have enough consensus to proceed with this drafts become WG
> items, WG, Chairs?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Martin Thomson <
> martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 31 July 2013 18:32, Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com> wrote:
> >>> I support these two drafts moving forward.  And, rather than having to
> figure out some ideal way to display confidence as a gating factor right
> now, once we have real values conveyed, we can likely figure out something
> useful .
> >>>
> >>> These two drafts promote the ability to report actual numeric values.
>  That's a good place to start.  Leaving the value(s) as implied or assumed
> just doesn't make for good engineering.
> >>
> >> Roger makes a good point.  However, having spoken with Brian, I think
> >> that it is important to highlight the implications of expressing
> >> confidence, with an appropriate amount of discouragement.  This is
> >> really only for cases where it's difficult to get location with a high
> >> confidence.
> >>
> >> I've done a little editing, though I don't know if this is actually
> >> going to make sense, since it was all done on the train, and I don't
> >> remember the entire journey because I was so tired, but here's what
> >> I'm proposing to add to the draft.
> >>
> >> 2.2.  Consuming and Presenting Confidence
> >>
> >>   The inclusion of confidence that is anything other than 95% presents
> >>   a potentially difficult usability for applications that use location
> >>   information.  Effectively communicating the probability that a
> >>   location is incorrect to a user can be difficult.
> >>
> >>   It is inadvisable to simply display locations of any confidence, or
> >>   to display confidence in a separate or non-obvious fashion.  If
> >>   locations with different confidence levels are displayed such that
> >>   the distinction is subtle or easy to overlook - such as using fine
> >>   graduations of color or transparency for graphical uncertainty
> >>   regions, or displaying uncertainty graphically, but providing
> >>   confidence as supplementary text - a user could fail to notice a
> >>   difference in the quality of the location information that might be
> >>   significant.
> >>
> >>   Depending on the circumstances, different ways of handling confidence
> >>   might be appropriate.  [I-D.thomson-geopriv-uncertainty] describes
> >>   techniques that could be appropriate for consumers that use automated
> >>   processing as well as background on the issue.
> >>
> >>   Providing that the full implications of any choice for the
> >>   application are understood, some amount of automated processing could
> >>   be appropriate.  In a simple example, applications could choose to
> >>   discard or suppress the display of location information if confidence
> >>   does not meet a pre-determined threshold.
> >>
> >>   In settings where there is an opportunity for user training, some of
> >>   these problems might be mitigated by defining different operational
> >>   procedures for handling location information at different confidence
> >>   levels.
> >>
> >> Now that I look at it, it's a lot of text, so it can probably be cut
> >> down, but I think that it conveys the right sentiment.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be
> privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or
> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any
> review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and
> delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>