- From: Dan Schutzer <dan.schutzer@fstc.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:51:49 -0500
- To: "'Serge Egelman'" <egelman@cs.cmu.edu>, "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" <pbaker@verisign.com>
- Cc: "'Ian Fette'" <ifette@google.com>, "'W3C WSC Public'" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
agreed -----Original Message----- From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Serge Egelman Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:23 AM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: Ian Fette; W3C WSC Public Subject: Re: ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion This is irrelevant for our purposes. If we test them and find that in a perfect world they don't work, then this is moot. If we test them and find that they're effective, then we make a recommendation, and it's out of our hands. At that point the application vendors aren't in compliance. serge Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > I have never had the slightest difficulty selling the idea of logotypes > to customers. The problem is purely on the application side. The logos > have no value unless they are displayed. > > So we risk a chicken and egg situation where the application side people > refuse to do anything about implementation until they are assured that > there will be 100% adoption by the site owners which is not going to > happen until there are applications to present the logos. > > Someone has to make the first move, we cannot gate the scope of what we > will consider by requiring an assurance of total adoption by any market > participant. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Ian Fette > *Sent:* Fri 09/11/2007 4:49 PM > *To:* W3C WSC Public > *Subject:* ACTION-335 logotypes and ISSUE-96 discussion > > This action (ACTION-335) was to provide discussion topics for ISSUE-96. > I only really have one point, and I will try to state it more clearly > than at the meeting. > > To me, the effectiveness of any of the logotype proposals (or the EV > proposals, for that matter) depends greatly upon the adoption of these > technologies by sites. We can do really cool flashy things when we get > an EV cert, or an EV-cert with a logo, but right now the only two sites > I can find using an EV cert are PayPal and VeriSign. Therefore, I wonder > how habituated people would become in practice, if they never (or > rarely) saw the EV/logotype interface stuff in use. > > My proposal is that any usability testing of the EV and/or logotype > things in the spec not only reflect how users would behave in a land > where everyone is using EV-certs and life is happy, but rather also test > a more realistic case. That is, look at what the adoption is presently > and/or what we can reasonably expect it to be at time of last call, and > do usability testing in an environment that reflects that adoption rate > - i.e. some percentage of sites using EV certs, some percentage also > using logos, and another percentage still using "normal" SSL certs. My > worry is that we may be thinking "EV certs will solve X,Y, and Z", but > that may only be the case if users are used to seeing them on the > majority of sites, and should that not end up being the case, we need to > look at the usability and benefit in that scenario as well. > > I think this is what the ACTION wanted, i.e. for me to state this point > more explicitly. I am going to therefore assume that my work on this > action is complete, unless I hear otherwise. > > -Ian -- /* PhD Candidate Vice President for External Affairs, Graduate Student Assembly Carnegie Mellon University Legislative Concerns Chair National Association of Graduate-Professional Students */
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 16:52:16 UTC