ip报文中的tos字段
This is something you likely already know: a good portion (perhaps the majority) of your customers probably haven’t read your license agreement, terms of service, or privacy policy. Savvy consumers should struggle through the legalese in order to get handle on where they stand with the companies they buy products and services from. However, for reasons we’ll talk about, many of your customers or users will never bother to read your TOS or other public facing legal documents. The lesson for web site owners in that should be: don’t punish consumers for failure to read your terms (and/or make your terms and policies easier to read and understand).
您可能已经知道了这一点：您的很大一部分客户(也许是大多数客户)可能没有阅读您的许可协议，服务条款或隐私权政策。 精明的消费者应该在法律术语方面苦苦挣扎，以便与购买产品和服务的公司保持一致。 但是，出于我们将要讨论的原因，您的许多客户或用户将永远不会理会您的TOS或其他面向公众的法律文件。 对于网站所有者而言，该课程应该是：不要因未读懂您的条款而惩罚消费者(和/或使您的条款和政策更易于阅读和理解)。
Today, someone at one of my favorite link sharing sites Hacker News shared a link to a four year old article from the San Francisco Chronicle about photo sharing site Ofoto (which is now Kodak Gallery). The article relates the story of a woman who signed up for Ofoto in order to store photos because the site offered free image sharing space. 12 months later, though, her photos were deleted without warning (sort of).
今天，我最喜欢的链接共享网站之一“黑客新闻”中的某人分享了指向《旧金山纪事报》上有关照片共享网站Ofoto (现为柯达画廊 )的四年历史文章的链接 。 这篇文章讲述了一个女人的故事，该女人注册了Ofoto以存储照片，因为该站点提供了免费的图像共享空间。 但是，在12个月后，她的照片被删除，没有警告(有点)。
As it turns out, Ofoto had a clause in their terms of service saying they could delete a user’s photos if the user hadn’t purchased one of their products or services over the past 12 months. Apparently, the stipulation was buried deep in the fine print. To Ofoto’s credit, they said they tried to contact the customer five times by email before deleting her photos — which was their policy, but the email address on file wasn’t valid.
事实证明，Ofoto在其服务条款中有一条条款规定，如果用户在过去12个月内未购买其产品或服务之一，则他们可以删除该用户的照片。 显然，该规定被深埋在精美的文字中。 值得赞扬的是，Ofoto表示他们试图通过电子邮件与客户联系五次，然后再删除她的照片-这是他们的政策，但文件上的电子邮件地址无效。
Kodak Gallery still has the same rule, but it only mentions it in tiny print on their sign up page, and in bold in the first paragraph of their TOS. That’s better than Ofoto, but shouldn’t such an important bit of information be made more clear to users? Burying that information in fine print, or even worse in the terms of service, almost ensures that users will miss it.
柯达画廊仍然有相同的规则，但仅在其注册页面上以很小的字体提及，而在其服务条款的第一段以粗体提及。 这比Ofoto更好，但是难道不应该让用户更清楚地了解如此重要的信息吗？ 以精美的文字掩埋信息，甚至在服务条款上甚至更差，几乎可以确保用户会错过它。
So why don’t people read terms of service and other web site policy documents? Because we’ve been conditioned not to. User agreements and policies are more often than not thousands of words long (i.e., multiple printed pages), and written at a college grade level. Would you read a terms of service document that’s 8 pages long and reads like a college text book? Would you read every one you come across in the course of using the Internet on a daily basis?
那么，为什么人们不阅读服务条款和其他网站政策文档呢？ 因为我们已经被限制了。 用户协议和政策通常多于数千个单词(即，多个印刷页面)，并且是在大学级别上写的。 您会读一本长达8页的服务条款文档，读起来像一本大学教科书吗？ 您会在每天使用互联网的过程中阅读您遇到的所有问题吗？
We reported on a Carnegie Mellon study in October that found that if users actually stopped to read — with enough attention paid to guarantee a fair level of comprehension — every privacy policy they came across in a year of average web surfing, it would take them 8 days of solid reading (201 hours). And that’s just privacy policies for web sites. Add in terms of service, license agreements, return policies, and other documents for web sites, software, mobile services, real world purchases, etc. and it’s no wonder consumers just click “Agree” without actually reading them. No one has that kind of time.
我们在十月份的卡内基梅隆大学研究报告中发现，如果用户实际上停止阅读，并且给予足够的重视以确保达到合理的理解水平，那么他们在平均每年上网时所遇到的每项隐私政策都将花费8天的持续阅读时间 (201小时)。 那仅仅是网站的隐私政策。 在服务，许可协议，退货政策以及网站，软件，移动服务，实际购买等的其他文档方面进行添加，也就不足为怪了，消费者只需单击“同意”而无需实际阅读即可。 没有人有这样的时间。
So there are two important lessons here:
因此，这里有两个重要的教训：
Make your policies a lot easier to read and as short as possible. BillMonk’s privacy policy is a good example of how to write a good user facing legal document — it’s relatively short and written in plain English.
让你的政策有很多更容易阅读和尽可能短。 BillMonk的隐私权政策是如何编写一个面向用户的良好法律文件的很好的例子-它相对简短并且用普通英语编写。
Don’t bury important information in policy documents. If there is anything vital that your users should know, spell it out to them clearly and somewhere they’ll actually read it.
不要将重要信息掩埋在政策文件中。 如果您的用户应该知道一些重要的内容，请将其清楚地拼写给他们，并告知他们实际可以阅读的地方 。
Both of these lessons can be boiled into one simple axiom: a positive user experience should be paramount. According to the Chronicle article, that was the lesson Ofoto learned as well. “[Ofoto] may start alerting members to the looming demise of their photo albums when they log on to the site — a much more consumer-friendly approach,” they reported. Of course, four years later Kodak Gallery has the same policy and doesn’t seem to make much of an attempt to make it clear to users before they sign up. Seems like they might still have some learning to do.
这两个课程都可以归纳为一个简单的公理：积极的用户体验至关重要。 根据《纪事报》的文章，这也是Ofoto吸取的教训。 他们报告说：“ [Ofoto]可能会开始提醒会员注意，当他们登录网站时相册即将消亡，这是一种更加方便消费者的方法。” 当然，四年后，柯达画廊采用了相同的政策，似乎并没有尝试过在用户注册之前向用户明确说明。 似乎他们可能仍需要学习。
翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/lesson-dont-bury-important-stuff-in-your-tos/
ip报文中的tos字段
相关资源：jdk-8u281-windows-x64.exe