[legal] Sign off on UX for IARC tool integration

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

Tracking
User Story
RESOLVED FIXED
5 years ago
5 years ago

People

(Reporter: c8o, Assigned: Mika)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Whiteboard: UX approved from legal)

Attachments

(2 attachments, 2 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

5 years ago
need legal to review the IARC integration and ensure
- all legal requirements have been met
- copy described accurately
(Reporter)

Updated

5 years ago
Assignee: nobody → udevi
Blocks: 928587
(Assignee)

Comment 1

5 years ago
Hi Caitlin, I spoke with our team, and here is the legal recommendation on communicating to developers that the IARC is a third party entity, with it's own terms of use and privacy policy, and that the IARC may contact the developer by email in connection with the ratings :

(1) Legal will update the Developer Agreement to clarify that (a) we require ratings for apps (b) we use the IARC rating system and (c) the IARC is a third party entity with its own terms and privacy policy.  When a developer agrees to the Developer Agreement, we will automatically get their consent to our use of a third party for ratings.

note 1 - should I file a bug with the new language so the Developer Agreement gets updated?

note 2 - we'll have to get translations for the localized Developer Agreements.
 
(2) In addition, we propose the following DRAFT language to appear to the developer during the developer flow.  

DRAFT
"Many countries require apps to be rated for age appropriateness.  We've formed a partnership with the International Age Rating Coalition ("IARC") to make it easy for you to publish your app in multiple regions. This rating service is provided to you for free.  All you have to do is fill out the following questionnaire.  [need to insert language to address developers who have already received certification - what do they do?]

Based on your responses to the questionnaire, the IARC will generate country specific and age appropriate ratings.  The IARC may contact you in connection with your app rating at the email address you provided us.  If you prefer the IARC to use a different email address, click here.

Questions and disputes on ratings are handled directly between you and the IARC.  Please note that the IARC is a third party entity, and we encourage you to review their terms of use and privacy policy.

Note 1 - This is draft language.  I can work with UX to finalize the language so that it conforms to the tone of other developer communications, is not too long, uses the right words, etc. 

Note 2 - UX can propose the design and best location for this language to appear. I added an option for the developer to provide a different email address - is this feasible? If not, then we'll just pass the email address through and delete the last sentence in the draft.

Note 3 - draft language should be run by ESRB, to make sure it is accurate. 

Note 4 - we're already getting consent in the Developer Agreement.  But this is making sure we're being transparent and clear to developers.  

Note 5 - My understanding is that ratings are mandatory for all apps, and that we use only the IARC system.  What happens if a developer refuses to be rated by IARC? Or the developer has already received an official rating somewhere, and wants to use that rating? We might have to explain this somewhere.

Comment 2

5 years ago
I imagine that we’ll also need some way to notify developers of this change to the Developer Agreement, and the incorporation of IARC into the tool.

Could we simply send an email saying essentially “The Developer Agreement has been changed. We are partnering with IARC and you’ll need to use their tools to get your ratings”?
(Assignee)

Comment 3

5 years ago
Hi Bram - I don't know if the team has decided the outreach plan to inform developers of the IARC tool.  You're right that the same email could include a notice that the developer agreement has changed.

Comment 4

5 years ago
I don’t foresee any change in our existing Developer Agreement interface (https://marketplace.firefox.com/developers/submit/ - do not log in), except with the addition of the new wording.

As far as including  IARC Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, should we:
* Include them along with our Developer Agreement, as the first part of app submission?
* Include them in our Ratings page, below the link to access the IARC tool?
* Not include them in DevHub, because they already exist when developers access the IARC tool?
(Assignee)

Comment 5

5 years ago
(In reply to Bram Pitoyo [:bram] from comment #4)
> As far as including  IARC Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, should we:

> * Include them along with our Developer Agreement, as the first part of app
> submission?
We should include a link to the IARC's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy within the body of the Developer Agreement.  

> * Include them in our Ratings page, below the link to access the IARC tool?
This works.  Just want to make sure we don't have it appear in multiple places, so if it appears here and in the Developer Agreement, no need to include anywhere else.

> * Not include them in DevHub, because they already exist when developers
> access the IARC tool?
Agreed.
Created attachment 822545 [details]
Design for submision flow changes for legal review.

I've attached the raitings submission flow designs here for review. We're thinking it would be best to add a 2nd text area with the IARC Ts&Cs and Privacy Policy and a 2nd set of "I accept" check boxes to the existing developer agreement page.

Updated

5 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(udevi)
Created attachment 823571 [details]
updated dev agreement page changes

After discussing it with the devs, it appears that our initial design requires an API that doesn't exist. This is our recommended alternative.
Comment on attachment 823571 [details]
updated dev agreement page changes

Thanks Tony.  I assumed these would live within the current agreement, like, links in the actual white textarea, but either way looks good to me.  Thanks.

Comment 9

5 years ago
I agree with Urmika’s comment 5, PP and ToS can exist as links within the body of the Developer Agreement text.
Flags: needinfo?(udevi)
(Assignee)

Comment 10

5 years ago
Hi Tony,

-No need to have the PP and ToS links appear separately. They should only be within the body of the Developer Agreement.  I'll update the Developer Agreement in Legal Bug 929818 when we receive the URLs from David K. 

-Page 11 of the Design for submission flow attachment - I think this is the best place to communicate to developers that we require ratings and what the IARC is.  Here's the copy from comment 1, edited slightly:

"Many countries require apps to be rated.  We've formed a partnership with the International Age Rating Coalition ("IARC") to simplify app publication.  The IARC ratings certificate tool is provided to you for free and will generate age appropriate ratings in multiple jurisdictions.  At this time, Firefox Marketplace requires all apps to be rated by the IARC.

By using the IARC's service, you agree to abide by their Privacy Policy [insert link] and Terms of Service [insert link].  The IARC may contact you in connection with your app rating at the email address you provided us.  If you prefer the IARC to use a different email address, click here."

- is it possible to have the "click here" option? If not, I'll reword.
Please reword.  "Click here" isn't in scope for v1
(Assignee)

Comment 12

5 years ago
Reworded version:

"Many countries require apps to be rated.  We've formed a partnership with the International Age Rating Coalition ("IARC") to simplify app publication.  The IARC ratings certificate tool is provided to you for free and will generate age appropriate ratings in multiple jurisdictions.  At this time, Firefox Marketplace requires all apps to be rated by the IARC.

By using the IARC's service, you agree to abide by their Privacy Policy [insert link] and Terms of Service [insert link].  The IARC may contact you by email in connection with your app rating."
(Assignee)

Comment 14

5 years ago
I attached the updated Developer Agreement to Bug 929818 (the update includes information on IARC and that ratings are required).  This is the new document that should be displayed to developers who go through the registration process.

Is there an updated UX flow to see the reworded material above?
(Reporter)

Updated

5 years ago
Blocks: 929820
(Assignee)

Comment 15

5 years ago
Tony - can you upload a new attachment for the UX incorporating Comments 10 and 12? Comment 10 has change to location of links in the previous UX design and comment 12 has reworded text to insert on page 11.

For comment 14 - can you confirm the source of the call for the Dev Agreement?
Flags: needinfo?(asantos)

Comment 16

5 years ago
Created attachment 832074 [details]
Design for submision flow changes for legal review.

The developer-facing ratings UI has been updated to incorporate the changes that Legal had suggested in comment 10 and comment 12.

You can find the changes on page 12 onwards. Note the addition of a new explanatory text area called “About the IARC ratings certificate tool”.

Unfortunately, I have no access to bug 929818, so I couldn’t update the developer agreement found on page 5 & 6. I’d happily update it the moment I have access to the text, but at this point, it’s just a matter for replacing one piece of text with another — and won’t replace any of the existing user interface element.
Flags: needinfo?(asantos)

Comment 17

5 years ago
A couple of questions/suggestions on this document - 

Design for submision flow changes for legal review. (6.49 MB, application/pdf) 
2013-11-13 23:36 PST, Bram Pitoyo [:bram]

1)	On page 12 – Can we change “Terms of Service” to “Terms of Use?"  It is a more appropriate description of the agreement.  We will adjust from the IARC side as well.  If not, no problem.
2)	On page 16 & 17 – This page shown in this mock-up will not be present when the system is live.  I just wanted to make sure that was clear.  It was developed for testing purposes and the developer will be taken directly to the rating questionnaire.
3)	On page 32 – Can the developer edit the rating cert?  I think the edit button is just in case a developer uploads the wrong certificate, but I wanted to be sure.
5)	What different languages will be in the developer portal?
(Assignee)

Comment 18

5 years ago
(In reply to David Kassack from comment #17)

> 5)	What different languages will be in the developer portal?
We provide legal agreements & privacy notices in the languages where marketplace has launched.  To date, that's Spanish (for Spain + several LatAm countries), Portuguese (Brazil), Polish, German, Greek, and Hungarian.

Comment 19

5 years ago
Created attachment 8335855 [details]
Design for submision flow changes for legal review.

(In reply to David Kassack from comment #17)
> 1)	On page 12 – Can we change “Terms of Service” to “Terms of Use?"  It is a
> more appropriate description of the agreement.  We will adjust from the IARC
> side as well.  If not, no problem.

The wording has been changed.


> 2)	On page 16 & 17 – This page shown in this mock-up will not be present
> when the system is live.  I just wanted to make sure that was clear.  It was
> developed for testing purposes and the developer will be taken directly to
> the rating questionnaire.

These pages have been taken out of the flow, too.


> 3)	On page 32 – Can the developer edit the rating cert?  I think the edit
> button is just in case a developer uploads the wrong certificate, but I
> wanted to be sure.

You’re right. “Edit” means that the screen will simply change to show two links: 1) create a new ratings certificate, and 2) enter certificate information manually. This edit interface will be used when developers update an app and it changes content to the extent that it requires a new rating to be put in place.
Attachment #822545 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #832074 - Attachment is obsolete: true
(Assignee)

Comment 20

5 years ago
David K - do you have any additional questions/concerns?

Otherwise, from MoCo legal, the UX is good to go.
Flags: needinfo?(dkassack)
Whiteboard: UX approved from legal

Comment 21

5 years ago
Nope.  

I just wanted to know what languages are supported by the developer portal...not just the legal agreements and privacy policies.
Flags: needinfo?(dkassack)
(Assignee)

Comment 22

5 years ago
Closing this bug since the UX was approved.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.