RE: favicons: updated editor's draft [ACTION-276]

Just because a practice is widespread or site marketers like it doesn't
mean it's a good idea.

The idea of making favicons a different size from agent-controlled
indicators is extremely problematic on many levels,  and anyway would
users really pick up on icon size as a security indicator?  Not an idea
WSC should promote or even take seriously.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Mike Beltzner
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:33 AM
To: Thomas Roessler
Cc: WSC WG
Subject: Re: favicons: updated editor's draft [ACTION-276]


On 8-Aug-07, at 10:15 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Per ACTION-276 from last week's call, I've tried a rewrite of some of 
> the favicons material in the light of the discussion at our last call;

> see:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#site-identifying
>   @@Web Security Context@@
>   Editor's Draft $Date: 2007/08/08 14:11:27 $

[...]

> Comments are, as always, welcome.

Sorry to not have been on the call last week. I can tell you that the
NECCESSARY techniques that MUST be implemented by a conforming web user
agent (as per 7.1.3) are unrealistic in terms of meshing with user
experience, and are, I think, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Specifically the requirement to not show a favicon in the Location Bar.

The favicon has become the visual avatar of a website, allowing for
brand association, and easing several tasks including scanning through
bookmarks, history and tabs to ease the task of locating (or
recalling) a specific entry.

This entire section seems to exist because security indicators presently
look like favicons, and since the website can simply copy that image and
make the favicon look like a security indicator, easy spoofing and
confusion is possible.

Was any consideration given to requiring that security indicators be
made such that they are not the same size and format as favicons? So, in
other words, not 16x16 graphics?

cheers,
mike

Received on Friday, 10 August 2007 19:43:43 UTC