Sparklines of Polling Data from NTIA MSH meeting (12 Jul 2012)

(By Joseph Lorenzo Hall, NYU)
Table of contents:

Background: The National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration (NTIA) is leading the effort to implement the Obama Administration's Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. NTIA held its' first multi-stakeholder (MSH) meeting on 12 July 2012 in Washington, DC. During this meeting a series of non-binding informational polls were conducted by NTIA staff and a facilitator. As far as I understand it, this polling process was meant to both 1) suggest topics that could be promising for the group to work on in the short- and medium-term; but also, 2) to gauge the level of importance attendees ascribe to each issue.

What is this document?: This is a revisualization of the polling data from that meeting. I found that data difficult to understand in the format in which it was released. This uses tiny bar graphs -- a/k/a sparklines -- instead.

(More details available below.)

First Working Question

Working Question: "Please identify in simple language key elements of mobile app transparency that are either already being advanced today or should be advanced?"

Poll of Stakeholders: "Which elements might be developed first?"

Group 1
Element Poll
(P=Present; R=Remote; A=All)
Poll
(Common Scale: 100/8)
Just in time notification / Just in time re: location / Notice in context P: 50,25,5,0 R: 3,3,1,0 A: 53,28,6,0 P: 50,25,5,0 R: 3,3,1,0
Prioritizing key elements (not overloading consumers with too much) P: 30,30,15,2 R: 1,2,5,0 A: 31,32,20,2 P: 30,30,15,2 R: 1,2,5,0
Group 2
Functional description of data use P: 100,15,0,0 R: 5,3,0,0 A: 105,18,0,0 P: 100,15,0,0 R: 5,3,0,0
Size of privacy policy / simple language answers P: 80,15,5,1 R: 3,3,0,1 A: 83,18,5,2 P: 80,15,5,1 R: 3,3,0,1
Common consumer friendly vocabulary P: 18,10,30,3 R: 4,3,2,1 A: 22,13,32,4 P: 18,10,30,3 R: 4,3,2,1
Consistency across apps P: 15,20,25,7 R: 5,2,2,0 A: 20,22,27,7 P: 15,20,25,7 R: 5,2,2,0
Short script / Iconography / Icons P: 20,30,10,5 R: 1,4,1,1 A: 21,34,11,6 P: 20,30,10,5 R: 1,4,1,1
Group 3
What data outside of app functionality (e.g. contact list) P: 110,3,0,0 R: 6,2,0,0 A: 116,5,0,0 P: 110,3,0,0 R: 6,2,0,0
Transparency of specific behaviors P: 6,30,50,10 R: 2,3,3,0 A: 8,33,53,10 P: 6,30,50,10 R: 2,3,3,0
Categorization of data P: 10,20,25,10 R: 1,4,0,1 A: 11,24,25,11 P: 10,20,25,10 R: 1,4,0,1
Categorization of practices P: 4,8,20,15 R: 2,3,2,0 A: 6,11,22,15 P: 4,8,20,15 R: 2,3,2,0
Group 4
Clarity on who is being transparent P: 25,40,15,1 R: 6,5,0,0 A: 31,45,15,1 P: 25,40,15,1 R: 6,5,0,0
Group 5
Machine readable disclosure (Actionable disclosure) P: 10,10,20,10 R: 2,1,4,1 A: 12,11,24,11 P: 10,10,20,10 R: 2,1,4,1
Tools for data transparency P: 2,3,10,30 R: 2,2,3,1 A: 4,5,13,31 P: 2,3,10,30 R: 2,2,3,1
Group 6
Safeguards for teens / Understandable to teens [and] kids for sites aimed at [...] teens and kids P: 12,4,22,20 R: 2,1,0,1 A: 14,5,22,21 P: 12,4,22,20 R: 2,1,0,1
Group 7
Need specificity P: 10,3,4,50 R: 0,1,3,1 A: 10,4,7,51 P: 10,3,4,50 R: 0,1,3,1
Group 8
Notice can happen outside of app P: 1,1,20,50 R: 3,1,4,1 A: 4,2,24,51 P: 1,1,20,50 R: 3,1,4,1
Group 9
Technology neutrality / Platform agnostic P: 85,25,0,1 R: 4,0,1,1 A: 89,25,1,2 P: 85,25,0,1 R: 4,0,1,1
Understand economics of data use P: 80,30,1,0 R: 4,4,1,0 A: 84,34,2,0 P: 80,30,1,0 R: 4,4,1,0
Identify common practices in use today P: 60,6,1,0 R: 5,1,0,0 A: 65,7,1,0 P: 60,6,1,0 R: 5,1,0,0
Maintain intermediary protections P: 70,70,5,5 R: 1,2,2,0 A: 71,72,7,5 P: 70,70,5,5 R: 1,2,2,0
Accountability / enforceable P: 40,40,8,1 R: 2,2,1,0 A: 42,42,9,1 P: 40,40,8,1 R: 2,2,1,0
Gather info on practices P: 15,5,4,20 R: 3,1,1,0 A: 18,6,5,20 P: 15,5,4,20 R: 3,1,1,0
Sliding scale for notice P: 10,30,25,5 R: 2,1,3,4 A: 12,31,28,9 P: 10,30,25,5 R: 2,1,3,4
Wide adoption / avoid exceptions P: 10,10,8,12 R: 3,2,2,2 A: 13,12,10,14 P: 10,10,8,12 R: 3,2,2,2
Clear statement of privacy rights [expand scope beyond transparency] P: 12,3,15,35 R: 8,1,1,0 A: 20,4,16,35 P: 12,3,15,35 R: 8,1,1,0
Consumer experience P: 5,1,20,60 R: 3,1,0,3 A: 8,2,20,63 P: 5,1,20,60 R: 3,1,0,3

Second Working Question

Follow-up Question: "What might be included in the working methods for the first phase of a common process?"

Poll of Stakeholders: "To what extent might these working methods be supported?"

Group 1
Element Poll
(P=Present; R=Remote; A=All)
Poll
(Common Scale: 100/8)
Look at common / current practices P: 80,5,2,0 R: 1,1,0,0 A: 81,6,2,0 P: 80,5,2,0 R: 1,1,0,0
Involve app developers P: 50,20,0,0 R: 5,4,0,0 A: 55,24,0,0 P: 50,20,0,0 R: 5,4,0,0
Focus on end of process P: 30,15,5,10 R: 1,2,0,0 A: 31,17,5,10 P: 30,15,5,10 R: 1,2,0,0
Legislative output process P: 8,4,8,40 R: 1,3,1,1 A: 9,7,9,41 P: 8,4,8,40 R: 1,3,1,1
Need for senior level input P: 10,10,12,4 R: 2,2,1,0 A: 12,12,13,4 P: 10,10,12,4 R: 2,2,1,0
Factual research by staff P: 4,15,20,8 R: 2,1,3,0 A: 6,16,23,8 P: 4,15,20,8 R: 2,1,3,0
Group 2
Working groups / focus on sub issues P: 70,30,0,2 R: 3,4,0,0 A: 73,34,0,2 P: 70,30,0,2 R: 3,4,0,0
Small number of topics / Multiple competing drafts P: 40,25,1,4 R: 2,2,1,0 A: 42,27,2,4 P: 40,25,1,4 R: 2,2,1,0
Identify problem set P: 40,20,0,1 R: 5,1,0,0 A: 45,21,0,1 P: 40,20,0,1 R: 5,1,0,0
FTC involvement P: 25,8,12,10 R: 5,0,1,0 A: 30,8,13,10 P: 25,8,12,10 R: 5,0,1,0
NTIA representative involvement P: 15,30,10,0 R: 2,2,0,0 A: 17,32,10,0 P: 15,30,10,0 R: 2,2,0,0
Pull in prior written comments P: 25,10,12,3 R: 3,3,0,0 A: 28,13,12,3 P: 25,10,12,3 R: 3,3,0,0
Outline of potential focus areas P: 12,10,7,3 R: 3,0,1,0 A: 15,10,8,3 P: 12,10,7,3 R: 3,0,1,0
NTIA suggested timetable and milestones / NTIA provided room P: 1,1,5,30 R: 2,0,2,0 A: 3,1,7,30 P: 1,1,5,30 R: 2,0,2,0
Group 3
Notice of materials in advance P: 65,0,0,0 R: 4,3,0,0 A: 69,3,0,0 P: 65,0,0,0 R: 4,3,0,0
Remote participation P: 35,8,3,0 R: 4,1,1,0 A: 39,9,4,0 P: 35,8,3,0 R: 4,1,1,0
Balance of load for small participants P: 12,15,12,3 R: 3,2,2,0 A: 15,17,14,3 P: 12,15,12,3 R: 3,2,2,0
Hold events across country P: 12,8,15,22 R: 4,1,1,1 A: 16,9,16,23 P: 12,8,15,22 R: 4,1,1,1
List serve / Mailing List , Multiple Listserves P: 8,15,20,20 R: 5,1,3,0 A: 13,16,23,20 P: 8,15,20,20 R: 5,1,3,0
Adobe connect and other tech tools to facilitate decision, WC3-like tools P: 8,45,20,3 R: 0,3,1,0 A: 8,48,21,3 P: 8,45,20,3 R: 0,3,1,0
Regular calls with IRC chat P: 0,7,25,40 R: 0,0,3,2 A: 0,7,28,42 P: 0,7,25,40 R: 0,0,3,2
Group 4
Full transparency / Open Process P: 40,6,10,4 R: 2,3,1,0 A: 42,9,11,4 P: 40,6,10,4 R: 2,3,1,0
Hybrid / Open P: 40,3,4,20 R: 2,2,0,0 A: 42,5,4,20 P: 40,3,4,20 R: 2,2,0,0
Parity for consumer groups P: 20,7,20,1 R: 3,1,2,1 A: 23,8,22,2 P: 20,7,20,1 R: 3,1,2,1
No numerical voting / other tools for consensus P: 18,5,0,0 R: 5,2,1,0 A: 23,7,1,0 P: 18,5,0,0 R: 5,2,1,0
Closed process P: 0,5,0,35 R: 1,0,1,5 A: 1,5,1,40 P: 0,5,0,35 R: 1,0,1,5
Archive P: 2,6,10,30 R: 1,4,0,1 A: 3,10,10,31 P: 2,6,10,30 R: 1,4,0,1
ANSI procedures P: 1,0,3,30 R: 0,0,3,0 A: 1,0,6,30 P: 1,0,3,30 R: 0,0,3,0

More about this visualization: NTIA released written notes on 1 Aug 2012 that included the polling data (PDF). I personally found the presentation of the poll data to be hard to visualize and compare: the format looks something like (80/5/2/0 1/1/0/0) to stand for: "80 people considered this element critically important; 5 people considered this element significantly important; 2 people considered this element somewhat important; and, 0 people considered this element as not a good candidate for the group's focus at this time". The first set of four numbers represents people polled in the meeting room while the second set of numbers refers to those joining by conference call. It is hard to compare data like this visually, and a much better idea would be small bar graphs, a/k/a sparklines.

The tables above include the polling data from each issue that was polled (i.e., reported with polling data by NTIA). Instead of the N/N/N/N format, I've used itty-bitty bar graphs -- sparklines -- to represent the same information graphically with "P" denoting votes from people present in the room and "R" denoting people voting via the conference call line. Each tiny bar graph is scaled to the highest number in each vote (so a 10/0/0/0 would have a y-maximum of 10). The columns are the same as in the NTIA release, except for a third column that uses a common scale so that you can compare relative magnitude from vote to vote: the scale is 80 for in-room (P) polling and 8 for remote (R) voting. (Note: there are two in-room polls with max values of 100 and 110 and their scaled graphs -- the third column -- will therefore not be scaled to 80; this is due to a technical limitation of the tools I'm using.)

(This viz uses jQuery and jQuery Sparklines. Please let me know if you catch any errors or have suggestions.)

Creative Commons License Revisualizing the NTIA MSH Polling Data by Joseph Lorenzo Hall is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Last modified: (2012-08-02 09:58:27 EDT) (v0.4, valid xthml)