<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Arrant Pedantry &#187; Semantics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.arrantpedantry.com/category/semantics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.arrantpedantry.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 03:55:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Do You Agree That We Ask for Your Consent?</title>
		<link>http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2009/01/27/do-you-agree-that-we-ask-for-your-consent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2009/01/27/do-you-agree-that-we-ask-for-your-consent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jonathon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Semantics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arrantpedantry.com/?p=52</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just finished filing my federal taxes with H&#038;R Block&#8217;s free e-filing (which I highly recommend, by the way), and at the end I encountered some rather confusing language. After submitting my return, I came to a page asking if I consented to let H&#038;R Block use my information for marketing purposes. (I always wonder [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just finished filing my federal taxes with H&#038;R Block&#8217;s free e-filing (which I highly recommend, by the way), and at the end I encountered some rather confusing language. After submitting my return, I came to a page asking if I consented to let H&#038;R Block use my information for marketing purposes. (I always wonder who explicitly consents to such things&#8212;who honestly says, &#8220;Yes, please try to sell me more of your tax-related products and services!&#8221;?) Unfortunately, I can&#8217;t get back to the page now, so I&#8217;ll have to reconstruct it from memory. </p>
<p>At the top it explained that they were requesting permission to use the information provided in my return to inform me of other stuff that I might be interested in purchasing from them. Then there was a paragraph saying something like &#8220;I, Jonathon, hereby consent to blah blah blah.&#8221; Next to this paragraph there was a check box. I took this to mean that by checking the box, I was allowing them to use my information. By leaving it unchecked, I was not. Pretty clear and straightforward so far.</p>
<p>Below this paragraph were two buttons, labelled &#8220;I Disagree&#8221; and &#8220;I Agree&#8221;, respectively. And here I paused for a little while, trying to figure out what exactly I was potentially agreeing or disagreeing with. Was I agreeing or disagreeing with the entire process of giving or not giving my consent? But the whole process was essentially an implicit question&#8212;can we use your information to try to sell you stuff?&#8212;and you can&#8217;t agree or disagree with a question, because it has no truth value to either confirm or deny. And anyway, if you could disagree with it, you&#8217;d just be agreeing to answer the question in the negative by refusing to answer it in the affirmative. I thought that perhaps I was reading it a little too literally, but I asked my wife what she thought about it, and she was similarly perplexed.</p>
<p>I finally figured out what they were really after when I moused over each button to see what appeared in my browser&#8217;s status bar. The disagree button had something about withholding consent or whatnot, so I decided that that was the option I wanted. In other words, it appears that the check box was entirely superfluous (though maybe it wasn&#8217;t&#8212;I don&#8217;t actually know what would have happened if I&#8217;d checked it and clicked &#8220;I Disagree&#8221; or left it unchecked and clicked &#8220;I Agree&#8221;), and the buttons were providing the wrong answers to the implicit question being asked. Of course, &#8220;I Agree&#8221; could have worked if it had not been answering an implicit question but rather a proposed course of action: &#8220;I agree to give my consent.&#8221; However, this does not work in the negative, producing the ungrammatical *I disagree to give my consent. </p>
<p>This problem wasn&#8217;t quite as troublesome as Geoffrey Pullum&#8217;s <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1078">latest run-in with bad interfaces</a>, but the basic problem is the same: the buttons don&#8217;t make a lick of sense by themselves because of fundamental breakdowns in semantics, and the user is left with no recourse but to take a stab at it and hope they got it right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2009/01/27/do-you-agree-that-we-ask-for-your-consent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
