RE: ISSUE-79: Understandability of security settings

Resending-uncertain what got through and what didn't...the email system I'm using seems to have had a crash.
Apologies for possible double-postings,
Bruno

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno von Niman [mailto:ANEC_W3CRep_Bruno@vonniman.com] 
Sent: den 9 juli 2007 18:43
To: 'Thomas Roessler'; 'mzurko@us.ibm.com'; 'bruno@vonniman.com'
Cc: 'Web Security Context WG'
Subject: RE: ISSUE-79: Understandability of security settings

After perception, interpretation follows and understanding crowns it...that should lead to aware users. 

Depends how far we want to reach - "understanding" concern, isn't it?

My Mother would never care, nor wish to understand as long as things work as they should:-),
Bruno


-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: den 6 juli 2007 20:10
To: mzurko@us.ibm.com; bruno@vonniman.com
Cc: Web Security Context WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-79: Understandability of security settings


On 2007-07-05 09:01:53 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:

> I believe goal 2.3 gets at understandability, with the phrase
> "intended user interpretation". If you think there should be
> more, what concrete text would you propose? 

I'm wondering if we're dealing with a philosophical difference here.
2.3 is carefully worded not to be about users understanding things,
but about them interpreting in the desired way.

These two things are rather different, and I seem to remember that
you like to quote Talleyrand on that in one of your talks.

Bruno, are you sure you really want to ask for user *understanding*?

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 17:29:58 UTC