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

Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion

From: Serge Egelman <egelman@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:31:11 -0500
Message-ID: <473A5DEF.1070809@cs.cmu.edu>
To: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>
CC: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>, W3C WSC Public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>



Johnathan Nightingale wrote:
> I don't want to speak for Serge here, but I suspect the reason Serge is 
> talking about testing a "perfect world" scenario is because he fully 
> expects to find them ineffective even then, at which point one can 
> hardly argue that they would do better under more "adverse" 
> circumstances.  So I don't think he's arguing at all for "it works in 
> lab studies, so let's mandate it" but rather the reverse: "It doesn't 
> even work with the deck stacked, so we had better not recommend it in 
> the real world."

Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing.

Thanks,

serge

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> J
> 
>>
>>
>> My $0.02 x 3 (== 0.03)
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2007 8:51 AM, Dan Schutzer < dan.schutzer@fstc.org 
>> <mailto:dan.schutzer@fstc.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     agreed
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
>>     <mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org>
>>     [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
>>     <mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org>] On
>>     Behalf Of Serge Egelman
>>     Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:23 AM
>>     To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
>>     Cc: Ian Fette; W3C WSC Public
>>     Subject: Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion
>>
>>
>>     This is irrelevant for our purposes.  If we test them and find
>>     that in a
>>     perfect world they don't work, then this is moot.  If we test them
>>     and
>>     find that they're effective, then we make a recommendation, and
>>     it's out
>>     of our hands.  At that point the application vendors aren't in
>>     compliance.
>>
>>     serge
>>
>>     Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>>     > I have never had the slightest difficulty selling the idea of
>>     logotypes
>>     > to customers. The problem is purely on the application side. The
>>     logos
>>     > have no value unless they are displayed.
>>     >
>>     > So we risk a chicken and egg situation where the application
>>     side people
>>     > refuse to do anything about implementation until they are
>>     assured that
>>     > there will be 100% adoption by the site owners which is not going to
>>     > happen until there are applications to present the logos.
>>     >
>>     > Someone has to make the first move, we cannot gate the scope of
>>     what we
>>     > will consider by requiring an assurance of total adoption by any
>>     market
>>     > participant.
>>     >
>>     >
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     > *From:* public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
>>     <mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org> on behalf of Ian Fette
>>     > *Sent:* Fri 09/11/2007 4:49 PM
>>     > *To:* W3C WSC Public
>>     > *Subject:* ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion
>>     >
>>     > This action (ACTION-335) was to provide discussion topics for
>>     ISSUE-96.
>>     > I only really have one point, and I will try to state it more
>>     clearly
>>     > than at the meeting.
>>     >
>>     > To me, the effectiveness of any of the logotype proposals (or
>>     the EV
>>     > proposals, for that matter) depends greatly upon the adoption of
>>     these
>>     > technologies by sites. We can do really cool flashy things when
>>     we get
>>     > an EV cert, or an EV-cert with a logo, but right now the only
>>     two sites
>>     > I can find using an EV cert are PayPal and VeriSign. Therefore,
>>     I wonder
>>     > how habituated people would become in practice, if they never (or
>>     > rarely) saw the EV/logotype interface stuff in use.
>>     >
>>     > My proposal is that any usability testing of the EV and/or logotype
>>     > things in the spec not only reflect how users would behave in a land
>>     > where everyone is using EV-certs and life is happy, but rather
>>     also test
>>     > a more realistic case. That is, look at what the adoption is
>>     presently
>>     > and/or what we can reasonably expect it to be at time of last
>>     call, and
>>     > do usability testing in an environment that reflects that
>>     adoption rate
>>     > - i.e. some percentage of sites using EV certs, some percentage also
>>     > using logos, and another percentage still using "normal" SSL
>>     certs. My
>>     > worry is that we may be thinking "EV certs will solve X,Y, and
>>     Z", but
>>     > that may only be the case if users are used to seeing them on the
>>     > majority of sites, and should that not end up being the case, we
>>     need to
>>     > look at the usability and benefit in that scenario as well.
>>     >
>>     > I think this is what the ACTION wanted, i.e. for me to state
>>     this point
>>     > more explicitly. I am going to therefore assume that my work on this
>>     > action is complete, unless I hear otherwise.
>>     >
>>     > -Ian
>>
>>     --
>>     /*
>>     PhD Candidate
>>     Vice President for External Affairs, Graduate Student Assembly
>>     Carnegie Mellon University
>>
>>     Legislative Concerns Chair
>>     National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
>>     */
>>
>>
>>
> 
> ---
> Johnathan Nightingale
> Human Shield
> johnath@mozilla.com <mailto:johnath@mozilla.com>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
/*
PhD Candidate
Vice President for External Affairs, Graduate Student Assembly
Carnegie Mellon University

Legislative Concerns Chair
National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
*/
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 02:31:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:53 GMT