- From: George Staikos <staikos@kde.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:45:55 +0000
- To: W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
On 27-Nov-06, at 11:12 AM, Amir Herzberg wrote:
>>
>> Why exactly doesn't it? I would think intuitively that having an
>> indicator that provides a greater level of granularity than just a
>> binary secure/insecure padlock would be helpful to users.
>>
> No. In (secure) usability, often `more is less`.
>
I'm with Amir on this one. I spent a lot of time trying to make
KDE support all kinds of fine-grained security levels with indicators
for all of them. Eventually I realized that I was trying to solve
the wrong problem. The problem I needed to solve was to remove the
insecure options altogether. Granted that some of this was related
to crypto export restrictions at the time, and the need to please
everyone, but that issue is long gone.
We need to be looking into how we can dispose of the cruft and
get back to a simple and elegant design that keeps the user safe by
default.
--
George Staikos
KDE Developer http://www.kde.org/
Staikos Computing Services Inc. http://www.staikos.net/
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 18:20:54 UTC