This week, amid all the hype around the Google’s Chrome browser, there was a mini-controversy over the EULA that came with Google’s new toy. The EULA, required users to “give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and nonexclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”
本周，在围绕Google Chrome浏览器的所有炒作中，有关Google新玩具的EULA引起了一场小型争议。 EULA要求用户“向Google授予永久性，不可撤销的，全球性的，免版税的非排他性许可，以复制，改编，修改，翻译，发布，公开表演，公开展示和分发您提交，发布或展示的任何内容在服务上或通过服务。”
That sounded ominous to many users — why should Google have a right to do whatever it wants with what you do when using Chrome? As it turns out, Google reuses its EULA language as much as possible, and so occasionally stuff will sneak in that doesn’t really apply. Google quickly responded and changed the offending text, which now reads, “You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”
对于许多用户来说，这听起来是个不祥之兆-为什么Google有权使用Chrome浏览器来做自己想做的事？ 事实证明，Google会尽可能多地重用EULA语言，因此偶尔会有一些偷偷摸摸的事情，但这并不适用。 GoogleSwift做出回应，并更改了令人反感的文字 ，该文字现在显示为：“您保留您在服务上或通过服务提交，发布或显示的内容中已拥有的版权和任何其他权利。”
The “controversy” highlights something important, though: the text of things like EULA’s and privacy policies are necessary for users to read but often times they are so long and difficult to comprehend that they are more likely to be skipped over. To be fair, Google’s Chrome EULA actually rates as one of the easiest to comprehend, but it is still lengthy — weighing in at over 4,000 words — or about 10 pages in Times New Roman 12 point. It’s unlikely that most users would ever read it, and the offending text only came to light after a tech journalists noticed it (i.e., not your average users).
但是，“争议”突出了一些重要的事情：EULA和隐私策略之类的文本对于用户来说是必不可少的，但是通常它们太长且难以理解，因此更有可能被跳过。 公平地说，谷歌的Chrome EULA实际上被认为是最容易理解的语言之一，但是它仍然很长-重达4,000多个单词-或Times Times New Roman 12点约10页。 大多数用户不太可能会阅读它，而且令人讨厌的文本仅在技术记者注意到它之后才暴露出来(即，不是您的普通用户)。
Erik Sherman over at BNet decided to see just how easy the tech legal documents we encounter every day are to read and understand. Sherman looked at 23 tech company privacy policies and graded them on a scale that went from 0-19+. The following chart shows comparable reading material by score so you can judge approximately what it would be like to read these policy documents.
BNet的Erik Sherman决定了解每天阅读和理解的技术法律文档有多么容易。 Sherman 查看了23家科技公司的隐私权政策，并将其分级为0-19 岁以上 。 下表按分数显示了可比较的阅读材料，因此您可以大致判断阅读这些政策文件的方式。
SMOG Grade LevelReading Material Example0-6Soap Opera Weekly7True Confessions8Ladies Home Journal9Reader’s Digest10Newsweek11Sports Illustrated12Time Magazine13-15New York Times16Atlantic Monthly17-18Harvard Business Review19+IRS Code SMOG年级 阅读材料示例 0-6 肥皂剧周刊 7 真实的自白 8 女士之家日记 9 读者文摘 10 新闻周刊 11 体育画报 12 时代杂志 13-15 纽约时报 16 大西洋月刊 17-18 哈佛商业评论 19岁以上 国税局The result was an average privacy policy weighing in at 3,442 words and an average reading level of 15.77 (Sherman averaged three scores, including the SMOG) — or somewhere between the New York Times and Atlantic Monthly. That hardly makes understanding these documents rocket science, but it is also far above what you’d expect in order to effectively speak to a broad base of users. That indicates that these companies generally don’t care if their users can understand (or will bother to read) the legal documents they’re expected to agree to in order to use the products or services offered.
结果是平均隐私权政策重达3,442字，平均阅读水平为15.77(Sherman的平均得分为3，包括SMOG)，或者介于《纽约时报》和《大西洋月刊》之间。 几乎无法理解这些文档，但是它远远超出了您想要有效地与广大用户交流的期望。 这表明这些公司通常不在乎其用户是否可以理解(或愿意阅读)他们期望使用的产品或服务所同意的法律文件。
The worst offender on Sherman’s list was Insight Communication, which scored a whopping 20.78 — which means reading their privacy policy was akin to reading the US tax code. Or in other words: no one will actually bother. The most readable was Yahoo!’s, but at 5,500 words, it was also the longest. Or in other words: no one will actually bother.
谢尔曼(Sherman)名单上最糟糕的罪犯是Insight Communication，得分高达20.78，这意味着阅读其隐私权政策类似于阅读美国税法。 换句话说：实际上没有人会打扰。 可读性最高的是Yahoo !，但是它的字数为5500，最长。 换句话说：实际上没有人会打扰。
Google’s Chrome EULA actually stacks up pretty well, in terms of readability it landed at an 11.77 average score using Sherman’s method. That’s easier to comprehend than anything on Sherman’s list of privacy policies, but the 10 page length still makes it a daunting read for the average user. Google Chrome privacy policy is actually quite good at a 12.15 and 1,100 words. Readable and pretty short.
实际上，就可读性而言，谷歌的Chrome EULA堆叠得很好，使用谢尔曼方法，它的平均得分为11.77。 这比Sherman隐私策略列表中的任何内容都更容易理解，但是10页的页面长度仍然令普通用户望而却步。 Google Chrome隐私权政策实际上相当不错，字数为12.15和1,100字。 可读且简短。
The best user-facing legal document we’ve seen in the tech world over the past few months came from Cuil. Their privacy policy is just 520 words long and scored a very readable 12.29 using Sherman’s method. Another great privacy policy is the one from Bill Monk. It’s just 733 words in length and scores a 10.01 — making it perhaps one of the most easy to read legal documents on the web. (Funniest policy goes to Something Awful — their serious version isn’t bad either. It scores poorly on the comprehension test, but is under 200 words, making it very manageable.)
在过去的几个月中，我们在技术界见过的最好的面向用户的法律文档来自Cuil。 他们的隐私政策只有520个字长，使用谢尔曼(Sherman)的方法得分为12.29。 另一个很棒的隐私政策是Bill Monk的隐私政策。 它的长度仅为733个单词，得分为10.01，可能是最容易阅读的法律文档之一。 (最有趣的政策是“ 可怕的事情 -他们的严肃版本也不错。在理解测试中得分很差，但少于200个单词，非常易于管理。)”
The lesson: make your privacy policy, EULA, and other user-facing legal documents as short and as easy to comprehend as possible. Your users will thank you (and you might even score some free press by bucking the trend and actually putting out a legal document that mere mortals can understand).
课程：使您的隐私权政策，EULA和其他面向用户的法律文档尽可能简短且易于理解。 您的用户会感谢您(您甚至可以通过逆势而行，甚至发布凡人都能理解的法律文件，也可以获得一些免费的媒体报道)。
翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/trying-to-decipher-that-eula-better-have-a-phd/
相关资源：eula文件，用于破解密码