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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 31 July 2013 18:32, Roger Marshall <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv