Bummer, thought it sounded too easy.
But following this theme, as long as we get down to the task of tagging
images then targeted filtering, whether it be site-based or browser
based, is always going to be an option. One day web browsers may well
support some kind of image/content filter system, in which case all
we'd need to do is hook our tagging system into it, at which point we
could dispense with a site-based preference option.
Christiaan
On 19 Feb 2005, at 11:38 pm, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Christiaan Briggs said:
So, if this person is correct, I owe you an apology. Browser-based
content filtering may well be the way to go.
PICS? This was discussed on en-wikipedia in December.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images#Proposition_A
As developer David Monniaux said on December 3:
"A tagging scheme such as PICS, while standard, does not specify a
taxonomy of ratings: that is, it specifies how the server tells the
client
that such or such content may be categorized as X, but does not
specify a
list of categories or guidelines according to which content should be
classified. Presumably, to be of any interest to real end-users, the
system would have to implement categories understood by major end-user
software. Who determines these categories? Are there standards for
them?
Do they reflect the point of view of certain groups? Etc."
So PICS itself is just a mechanism. You have to use PICS alongside
some
end-user taxonomy (content classification system) that is recognisable
by
some popular net nanny software, and ask the user to download and
program
the net nanny software.
All sounds a bit complex for people who, I'm repeatedly told, can't
even
be bothered to learn how to turn image downloads on and off.