# Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

R Martin Roscheisen (rmr@cs.stanford.edu)
Thu, 22 Jun 1995 16:39:14 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Paul Francis: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- In reply to: Ron Daniel Jr.: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"

    Message-Id: <9506222339.AA14319@Xingu.Stanford.EDU>

    To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov

    Subject: Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

    From: R Martin Roscheisen <rmr@cs.stanford.edu>

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jun 1995 16:10:02 MDT."

                 <9506221610.ZM777406@macrdan.acl.lanl.gov>

    Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 16:39:14 -0700

>for group annotations has come out of the Stanford Digital Library effort
>\cite{prdm}. Its architecture would enable a variety of interesting

...where information about this prototype implementation can be found at
http://www-pcd.stanford.edu/COMMENTOR/ for example.

This scheme would have no problems with sites who do not comply with a
certain imposed rating policy since it architecturally separates
content provision and content judgement. Blocking of complete sites
could be achieved with browser caching of a SOAP annotation which
ranges over more than one URL [not in current prototype, but only
minor change]. Kids would be kept by accessing certain pages by not
allowing them to deactivate the SOAP sets chosen at liberty by their
parents.

For the special case of what the KidCode proposal is geared towards,
the ComMentor framework could be used in a way which does not require
browser augmentations; the additional reduced functionality would all
be factored out into a local proxy server which blocks certain pages
once they are accessed with any browser. [which does not scale as
nicely, but would be an answer to those who want something "now".]
Of course, this would break the symmetry in the current design that
anyone who makes use of content ratings will also be able to add new
ones (only into sets to which this person is authorized to write, of
course). But this would be acceptable for keeping the kids from
seeing whatever their parents don't want them to see. If dad wants
then to go out into the wilderness and rate contents according to the
standards of his local parental guidance group, then he can get a
browser which allows him to create annotations.

Concerning KidCode, also note that with respect to the installed base
of browsers and rapid adoptation, there is no advantage of browser
augmentations which requires one line of code to one which requires 100
lines of code. Cheers, - RMR

- Next message: Paul Francis: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- In reply to: Ron Daniel Jr.: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"