- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:58:29 -0400
- To: Rachna Dhamija <rachna.w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Quickly glancing through the proposed testing, two things are catching my eye: - Identity Signal, Page Security Score, and the EV part of the proposals are pretty much focused on the same topic -- passive indicators, and when to show them. However, we have no language in the proposals so far that would usefully tell us what these indicators would look like. Working on an editor's draft for what the rec track document might look like, one question is what attributes about the issuer and subject would actually be displayed in the identity signal, and under what conditions. - The proposed experiment for EV doesn't actually check whether people understand the indicator; it rather checks whether the absence of these indicators can be used as a hook to social engineer users into subverting the integrity of their browser. That's a somewhat different question. Cheers, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> On 2007-07-31 18:22:24 -0700, Rachna Dhamija wrote: > From: Rachna Dhamija <rachna.w3c@gmail.com> > To: W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org> > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:22:24 -0700 > Subject: first cut usability walk through > List-Id: <public-wsc-wg.w3.org> > X-Spam-Level: > X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/20abbc510707311822h530d23eawb4a2dc63c186b12f@mail.gmail.com > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5 > > The usability group is starting to analyze the proposed recommendations. > Our first goal is to clearly state the expected user behavior in each > proposal and to map this to what is known from previous studies. > > Proposal authors: Did we capture your expected user behavior correctly? Is > there anything you disagree with or would like to add? > http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/RecommendationUsabilityEvaluationFirstCut > > (Note: this is a work in progress- each write up is by a different author > and does not represent consensus by our group yet). > > Rachna
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 01:58:55 UTC