Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Specification review for fenced frames (Issue #838)

lknik left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#838)

> The core problem we're concerned about is that the use cases are in some ways also abuse cases.
> 
> The [Google Pay example](https://developers.googleblog.com/en/updated-google-pay-button-increases-click-through-rates/) is a great example here. No doubt the Google Pay team believes that this is an unqualified improvement to their product. They show that more people buy things if they show the last four digits of the card number in the Google Pay button. If we think of the feature from the perspective of making shopping more pleasant and streamlined, by showing people that payment through this button uses a service that is known to them, that has real upsides. People presented with information from an actor they trust (if they do in fact trust Google Pay services, which seems likely, at least to some extent, if they've already added their card info to it) might then feel reassured about the handling of their information.

That's a valid concern. However, it seems to deal with the example for use cases, not the mechanism, am I correct?
"_Fenced frames are designed to allow websites to embed content from other sites, with their cross-site data, in a way that intends to block communication between the embedder and fenced frame so that the cross-site data is not joinable_".
I mean, in theory such a button could be made to function today even without fencedframes. And indeed, it's a matter of user perception. I reckon that user perception responds to how the technology works. People get used to technology. Of course it's important not to surprise the user with sudden changes, but that is also a separate usability responsible of the UA. In my view it's debatable to what extent it's a dark pattern.


> 
> We are also concerned that the abuse scenarios here have not been given due consideration. The potential for abuse from a good actor here seems pretty strong, but the potential for this capability to be exploited by a bad actor is potentially far worse.

It's good that the issue is pointed out, so it can be given due consideration :) 
I would be surprised if just about any website would be able to display parts of my CC number, and I agree that the user could reasonably assume that this particular website may have access to the full CC number. Which may give rise to unnecessary fear or even contacting the bank. Now imagine those headline stories: "_Is Google Chrome giving all websites your credit card number?_" :-) 

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/838#issuecomment-2796244768
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/838/2796244768@github.com>