Re: Re: Allow ... centralized dialog up front

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Charles McCathie Nevile <> wrote:

> That kind of bulk approach does not work. Users don't understand
>>> what's going on.
> That's what research shows. To be fair, we've generally presented the
> options in ways that are over-technical.
> "This application will have access to your location" is not as clear as
> "This page can tell anyone where you are and where you go while it is open"

Figuring out if a user understands what he's agreeing to and figuring out
if the current way we do things is annoying to users are to pair of shoes.

"This Application would like to know your location" [Allow] [Deny] -> ok
"This Application would like to use fullscreen" [Allow] [Deny] -> fsck ok!
"This Application would like to capture your mouse" [Allow] [Deny] ->
enough already! yes yes yes!
"This Application would like to use your camera" [Allow] [Deny] -> you're
trolling me right?
"This Application would like to store local data" [Allow] [Deny] -> ...
<user has closed the page>

You don't need research to figure out that with a growing list of security
restricted capabilities that have to be explicitly confirmed by a user to
work, you will relatively quickly (at 3 or so) reach the point where it
becomes extremely annoying.

Now I don't know what that "research" tested, but I'm pretty sure it didn't
account for 5 successive popups vs. a centralized up front dialog.

This kind of popup pestering even has precedent in a variety of OSes that
all but abandoned the idea of asking a user questions about his preferences
one at a time.

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 11:38:27 UTC