W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > July 2007

RE: ISSUE-79: Understandability of security settings

From: Bruno von Niman <ANEC_W3CRep_Bruno@vonniman.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:43:29 +0200
To: "'Thomas Roessler'" <tlr@w3.org>, <mzurko@us.ibm.com>, <bruno@vonniman.com>
Cc: "'Web Security Context WG'" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005d01c7c248$4a9d11b0$6774a7d9@BMySony>

After perception, interpretation follows and understanding crowns it...that should lead to aware users. 

Depends how far we want to reach - "understanding" concern, isn't it?

My Mother would never care, nor wish to understand as long as things work as they should:-),

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: den 6 juli 2007 20:10
To: mzurko@us.ibm.com; bruno@vonniman.com
Cc: Web Security Context WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-79: Understandability of security settings

On 2007-07-05 09:01:53 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> I believe goal 2.3 gets at understandability, with the phrase
> "intended user interpretation". If you think there should be
> more, what concrete text would you propose? 

I'm wondering if we're dealing with a philosophical difference here.
2.3 is carefully worded not to be about users understanding things,
but about them interpreting in the desired way.

These two things are rather different, and I seem to remember that
you like to quote Talleyrand on that in one of your talks.

Bruno, are you sure you really want to ask for user *understanding*?

Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 16:44:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:17 UTC