Improving age verification

Ryan Feeley rfeeley at mozilla.com
Tue Aug 26 10:51:45 PDT 2014


Oops, I got my 3s mixed up. I meant 3a
https://www.lucidchart.com/documents/view/9a25eda5-f03d-46c0-80bf-756cd17da7c3


On Aug 26, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Jared Hirsch <6a68 at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Hey Ryan,
> 
> Would you mind recapping what approach 3b is? I see an approach 3a earlier in the thread, but must have missed the 3b discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jared
> 
> On Aug 26, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ryan Feeley <rfeeley at mozilla.com> wrote:
> 
>> Good news, just meeting with Urmika now and approach #3b is a go! Only detail is that we only allow birthyear choice once, so users will have to choose carefully.
>> 
>> Ryan Feeley
>> UX, Cloud Services
>> Mozilla UX
>> IRC: rfeeley
>> 
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Chris Karlof <ckarlof at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> As FxA expands to other services, it is probably good time to revisit this. Here’s the current plan:
>>> 
>>> 1) Ryan is going to talk with Mika on the legality of approach #3.
>>> 2) After 1), we’ll explore implementation strategies on all our platforms.
>>> 
>>> -chris
>>> 
>>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Peter deHaan <pdehaan at mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Clearly #1 is the best solution.
>>>> 
>>>> Why? input type=date
>>>> 
>>>> On my Flame and iPhone, it displays a handy spinner wheel which makes year/month/day input silly fast (http://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml5_input_type_date -- sadly w3schools was the only half decent docs i found with an example). I don't have my Nexus 4 handy to see how Android Chrome and Android Firefox currently treat that input type though.
>>>> On the downside, desktop browser support is probably poor and i'm not sure how we could easily switch to some jQuery calendar solution or fall back to something else. http://caniuse.com/#feat=input-datetime
>>>> 
>>>> -peter
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Karl Thiessen" <kthiessen at mozilla.com>
>>>> To: dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 7:58:20 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Improving age verification
>>>> 
>>>> I think Greg puts it succinctly; I am quite firmly in this camp.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --KT.
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Greg Norcie" <greg at norcie.com>
>>>> To: dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 2:15:51 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Improving age verification
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know if anyone on this list had the dubious pleasure of being a 
>>>> tween under COPPA, but it was quite annoying. If I wanted to say, sign 
>>>> up for say, a Debian discussion forum, I had to lie about my age. I 
>>>> would be extremely unhappy if once I was finally 13, a service excluded 
>>>> me because it was "too much effort" to cover my edge case. I might even 
>>>> be annoyed enough to seek out another product. Isn't one of this year's 
>>>> goals to grow the Firefox userbase?
>>>> 
>>>> Second, while 13 year olds might not be particularly passionate about 
>>>> Sync, what about other projects like Loop. I'll bet 13 year olds would 
>>>> be pretty annoyed if they couldn't sign up for the latest messaging app.
>>>> 
>>>> I understand there's limited developer resources, but frankly, this 
>>>> seems like pretty minor fix. If the user is in the magic year, ask for a 
>>>> full birthdate. And we wouldn't even need to retain the data right? Just 
>>>> that the verification passed? So it's not like there is a privacy issue. 
>>>> I think we should think about the signal we are sending to the 
>>>> community if we leave this bug open. Do we want to tell an already 
>>>> disenfranchised group we don't care about them?
>>>> --
>>>> Greg Norcie
>>>> 
>>>> On 8/19/14, 1:20 PM, Edwin Wong wrote:
>>>>> Sorry - I was quick to the punch there...  That was in reference to solution #3 or #3a.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think if we're going 'improve' age verification, we need to support the exact dates for 13 year old.  I'd choose the least amount of work possible to support exact age verification but with no impact on users over 13.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -edwin
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Edwin Wong" <edwong at mozilla.com>
>>>>> To: "Nick Alexander" <nalexander at mozilla.com>
>>>>> Cc: dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 1:16:17 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Improving age verification
>>>>> 
>>>>> At first I thought the same... but the MM/DD/YYYY picker ONLY displays if you pick the year that says you're 12 or 13.  If you are over 13, you will never see this date picker/form fields.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -edwin
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Nick Alexander" <nalexander at mozilla.com>
>>>>> To: dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:34:10 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Improving age verification
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2014-08-19, 10:25 AM, Ryan Feeley wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Currently our sign-up form makes users feel older (born 1990 or earlier?), and excludes some kids born in the magic year: https://accounts.firefox.com/signup
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Finally… here are three proposals to improve our age verification:
>>>>>> https://www.lucidchart.com/documents/view/9a25eda5-f03d-46c0-80bf-756cd17da7c3
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Remember that The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) is a United States federal law that requires that we use a “neutral" age verification mechanism.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe option #1 and #2 are neutral, but I’ll require legal input for #3.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Which do you prefer: #1, #2, #3, #3a or leave it the same?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Entering YMD (#1) on mobile is out of the question.  Unbelievably
>>>>> terrible with keyboards, Swype, auto-complete, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I could be convinced that #2 without the day field (what do we care?
>>>>> round!) is worth it.  But maybe we just go for a larger year range.
>>>>> 
>>>>> #3 is a lot of effort for a really small win.  In general, my political
>>>>> features are not unduly ruffled by denying folks in the cusp year access.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nick
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Dev-fxacct mailing list
>>>>> Dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Dev-fxacct mailing list
>>>>> Dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Dev-fxacct mailing list
>>>>> Dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dev-fxacct mailing list
>>>> Dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dev-fxacct mailing list
>>>> Dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dev-fxacct mailing list
>>>> Dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev-fxacct mailing list
>>> Dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev-fxacct mailing list
>> Dev-fxacct at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-fxacct/attachments/20140826/806f2988/attachment.html>


More information about the Dev-fxacct mailing list