Re: first cut usability walk through

If you're asking me directly, I don't know (which I guess would mean no, I 
don't agree). I'm missing a lot of context in that statement.

I would say a design that gets only 50% of what you want is less good than 
one that gets 100%. 

I would say anything less than 100% leaves open the door to attacks. But 
more is still better. 

I would say it's in our charter to (at least) make things better. 

I thought it might be useful data in the context I put it forward. 






Re: first cut usability walk through

Serge Egelman 
to:
Mary Ellen Zurko
08/10/2007 04:43 PM


Sent by:
public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
Cc:
rachna.w3c, W3 Work Group










Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:
> 
> "Users are habituated to clicking yes to dialog boxes regarding 
> security. They will not read the dialog, and instead find a way of 
> dismissing and continuing on to their primary task "
> 
> Some will, and some won't. In one "in the wild" study, over half chose 
> expediency over security. It is in some ways a "best case" scenario for 
> training and context (work). See:
> http://www.acsa-admin.org/2002/papers/7.pdf
> 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  If you mean we should expect 
a best case scenario of 50% reading the dialog boxes, then can't we 
agree that the design is fundamentally flawed?

serge

-- 
/*
PhD Candidate
Vice President for External Affairs, Graduate Student Assembly
Carnegie Mellon University

Legislative Concerns Chair
National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
*/