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

On 10-Aug-07, at 3:42 PM, <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>  
<michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com> wrote:

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

Please don't make strawman arguments. I never claimed that favicons  
were a good idea for either of those easily-questionable rationales.

Favicons are extremely helpful for reducing the cognitive overheard  
of recognition when glancing at a screen. The human ability to  
recognize colour and shape within a visual field is superior to its  
ability to recognize and parse text. Favicons help measurably with a  
user's ability to ambiently recognize where on the web they are when  
they glance at the location bar, as well as their ability to find a  
specific entry in the location bar drop down, tab strip, or bookmark  
view.

> 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.

Why is it extremely problematic on many levels? It requires us  
dictating that browser vendors not use 16x16 px icons as a way of  
representing security indicators. I'm not saying "make a bigger  
lock", I'm saying "use something that isn't a square".

For example, if a security indicator was something like:  
[ Encrypted ] or [ Security Info ], it couldn't be spoofed by a favicon.

Why would we not take that seriously?

cheers,
mike

>
> -----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 20:09:01 UTC