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

[James Winterbottom <[e-mail]>]

I am happy to review the confidence draft.


Sent from my iPad

On 27/08/2013, at 6:28 AM, Roger Marshall <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I support the adoption.  I'm confident that we can get some reviewers!
> 
> -roger marshall.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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 <[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
> 
> 
> 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.