RE: ACTION-374 - proposed re-written text for 6.3, Page Security Score from michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com on 2008-01-24 (public-wsc-wg@w3.org from January 2008)

From: <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:04:57 -0600
To: <ifette@google.com>, <hahnt@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9D471E876696BE4DA103E939AE64164DC43637@msgswbmnmsp17.wellsfargo.com>
I predict many users are going to find this type of indicator quite
useful.  Certainly more helpful than today's misleading padlocks &
colored address bars.  If it was up to me or Tim the language would say
MUST.  Ian wants MAY.  Splitting the difference and going with SHOULD
seems like a way to split the difference.  Compromise means nobody wins.
;-)

  _____  

From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Ian Fette
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:27 AM
To: Timothy Hahn
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-374 - proposed re-written text for 6.3, Page
Security Score


By saying that a user agent MAY elect not to display the indicator, but
that it SHOULD display the indicator, we're saying we think it's useful,
but if one wants to ignore that go ahead. I don't think that I'm yet
willing to go along and say that I think it's useful. 

I really want to know what a person is supposed to do when they see this
indicator. If they see 3/4 bars, what do they do? If they see a meter
that's somewhere towards the right, what do they do? God forbid they see
a "78" and have to figure that out. None of these representations seem
like a good idea to me, and until we can come up with an indicator that
is actually going to inform user action, I really don't think we be
saying SHOULD about any of this, with the possible exception of noticing
a change. 

Let's say that I go to my company's webmail, and it has 2/4 bars. I'm
still going to log in. Let's say I go to a e-commerce site and it has
3/4 bars. What does that mean? Is it safe or not? (and I seriously doubt
that anyone is going to take on the liability of an indicator that
answers that question in a binary fashion, which is the only way this
might be useful, if we actually had the data to make that decision which
we do not). 

This still seems way too strong to me. 


On Jan 23, 2008 6:46 PM, Timothy Hahn <hahnt@us.ibm.com> wrote:



	Ian, 
	
	In addition to the level of indirection I referred to below, I
also added this clause: 


	>  > The user agent MAY elect to display a visual indicator in
primary chrome
	>  > only when a change in "security confidence estimate" values
is observed.
	>  >
	
	
	I added this upon reflection of your and Jonathan's comments on
the 16 January call where you seemed to desire to not always show a
visual indicator. 
	
	I still believe that some type of meter that has more than 0/1
gradations is better than a meter that is binary and also better than no
meter at all. 


	Regards, 
	Tim Hahn
	IBM Distinguished Engineer
	
	Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
	Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
	phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
	fax: 919.224.2530
	
	
	
	
From: 	"Ian Fette" <ifette@google.com> 
To: 	Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS 
Cc: 	public-wsc-wg@w3.org 
Date: 	01/23/2008 05:24 PM 
Subject: 	Re: ACTION-374 - proposed re-written text for 6.3, Page
Security Score	

  _____  




	I think that what I was saying on the call, and I heard the same
from
	at least Johnathan, was that it's unclear what it means even if
you
	have a dial, or "3 bars out of 4". At the end, it doesn't help
me
	decide whether to proceed or not. The indirection didn't solve
this
	problem.
	
	On Jan 23, 2008 2:13 PM, Timothy Hahn <hahnt@us.ibm.com> wrote:
	>
	> Ian,
	>
	> Thanks for the feedback.
	>
	> I tried to express a level of indirection between what is
displayed (I
	> referred to this as a "visual indicator") and the value itself
(which I
	> referred to as the "value").  This indirection was meant to
allow for a
	> difference between what is displayed and the "raw score" value
itself.
	>
	> I welcome suggestions on making this more clear in the
write-up.
	>
	> Relative to your desire for MAY vs. SHOULD - given the
different opinions of
	> the people that have been discussing this, I made the bold
decision that
	> SHOULD seemed appropriate.
	>
	>
	> Regards,
	> Tim Hahn
	>  IBM Distinguished Engineer
	>
	>  Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
	>  Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
	>  phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
	>  fax: 919.224.2530
	>
	>
	>
	>
	>  From: "Ian Fette" <ifette@google.com>
	>  To:
	> Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
	>  Cc:
	> public-wsc-wg@w3.org
	>  Date: 01/23/2008 04:55 PM
	>
	>  Subject: Re: ACTION-374 - proposed re-written text for 6.3,
Page Security
	> Score
	>
	>
	>  ________________________________
	>
	>
	>
	> I'm still unclear on the following two points:
	>
	>  The user agent SHOULD provide a visual indicator in primary
chrome
	>  which varies relative to the "security confidence estimate"
value.
	>  Examples of such visual indicators (non-normative) are
gauges,
	>  thermometers, a selection of several textual descriptions,
and
	>  color-gradations.
	>
	>  The visual indicator SHOULD be especially conspicuous in
display when
	>  the "security confidence estimate" value is different than
the value
	>  which was observed for the loaded page in previous visits to
the
	>  loaded page.
	>
	>  It sounds to me like there was a lot of agreement on the call
that
	>  changes in this score might be informative. I don't think
there was
	>  any agreement that the raw score itself was informative. I
don't
	>  understand why we're saying that the score SHOULD be
indicated in
	>  primary chrome, nor do I understand why it makes sense to
show it if
	>  the score has changed (i.e. "Hey, this was 78 and now it's
68" -
	>  "Great, what does that mean"). I think it may make sense
(MAY) to call
	>  out what changed, but calling out the score (either normally,
or even
	>  when it changes) still makes no sense to me.
	>
	>  I would love to see these SHOULD -> MAY
	>
	>  -Ian
	>
	>  On Jan 23, 2008 10:41 AM, Timothy Hahn <hahnt@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
	>  >
	>  > To Mez:
	>  >
	>  > I agree with your proposal and will make that be so in the
draft.
	>  >
	>  > To Mike:
	>  >
	>  > While I, myself, would prefer stronger language, I worded
the updates per
	>  > the discussion from the group (during the weekly conference
call as well
	> as
	>  > on the mailing list).
	>  >
	>  > Regards,
	>  >
	>  > Tim Hahn
	>  >  IBM Distinguished Engineer
	>  >
	>  >  Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
	>  >  Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
	>  >  phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
	>  >  fax: 919.224.2530
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >  From: Mary Ellen Zurko/Westford/IBM@IRIS
	>  >  To:
	>  > Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
	>  >  Cc:
	>  > public-wsc-wg@w3.org
	>  >  Date: 01/23/2008 01:29 PM
	>  >  Subject: Re: ACTION-374 - proposed re-written text for
6.3, Page
	> Security
	>  > Score
	>  >  ________________________________
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  > I propose that you also change the title of the section to
"Security
	>  > Confidence Estimate"
	>  >
	>  >           Mez
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >  From:
	>  > Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
	>  >  To:
	>  > public-wsc-wg@w3.org
	>  >  Date:
	>  > 01/23/2008 11:29 AM
	>  >  Subject: ACTION-374 - proposed re-written text for 6.3,
Page Security
	> Score
	>  >  ________________________________
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>  > Hi all,
	>  >
	>  > From last week's meeting (16 January 2008) I took an action
to propose
	>  > re-written text for the "Page Security Score" section.
	>  >
	>  > From the latest wsc-xit draft, the current text reads:
	>  >
	>  > --- Start ---
	>  > 6.3 Page Security Score
	>  >
	>  > See also: ISSUE-129
	>  >
	>  > Please refer to the following entries in the Working
Group's Wiki for
	>  > relevant background information:
RecommendationDisplayProposals/PageScore
	>  >
	>  > The user agent MUST reduce the state of all security
context information
	>  > made available to a single value. A partial order MUST be
defined on the
	> set
	>  > of possible values.
	>  >
	>  > The user agent MUST make the security context information
value available
	> to
	>  > the end user, in either primary or secondary chrome.
	>  >
	>  > The user agent MUST make the formula by which the value is
calculated
	>  > available to the end user. Documentation of the user agent
is the
	> likeliest
	>  > place.
	>  >
	>  > The form of the indicator of this value will depend on the
user agent and
	>  > end user abilities. The user agent SHOULD provide a a
primary chrome
	>  > indicator
	>  >
	>  > --- End ---
	>  >
	>  > Here is my proposed re-written text:
	>  >
	>  > --- Start ---
	>  > 6.3 Page Security Score
	>  >
	>  > See also: ISSUE-129
	>  >
	>  > Please refer to the following entries in the Working
Group's Wiki for
	>  > relevant background information:
RecommendationDisplayProposals/PageScore
	>  >
	>  > The user agent SHOULD provide a means of reducing the
collection of
	> security
	>  > context information which is available for any loaded page
to a numeric
	>  > value (termed a "security confidence estimate").
	>  >
	>  > The calculation algorithm for the "security confidence
estimate" MAY be
	> made
	>  > selectable by the end user or offered by separately
installed user agent
	>  > plug-ins.
	>  >
	>  > The user agent SHOULD provide a visual indicator in primary
chrome which
	>  > varies relative to the "security confidence estimate"
value.  Examples of
	>  > such visual indicators (non-normative) are gauges,
thermometers, a
	> selection
	>  > of several textual descriptions, and color-gradations.
	>  >
	>  > The visual indicator SHOULD be especially conspicuous in
display when the
	>  > "security confidence estimate" value is different than the
value which
	> was
	>  > observed for the loaded page in previous visits to the
loaded page.
	>  >
	>  > The user agent MAY elect to display a visual indicator in
primary chrome
	>  > only when a change in "security confidence estimate" values
is observed.
	>  >
	>  > The user agent MUST make the details of all available
security context
	>  > information available to the end user, in either primary or
secondary
	>  > chrome.
	>  >
	>  > If a "security confidence estimate" is provided, the
provider of the
	>  > implementation MUST make the calculation algorithm by which
the "security
	>  > confidence estimate" value is calculated available to the
end user.
	>  > Documentation for the user agent or plug-in which is
employed is the
	>  > likeliest place.
	>  >
	>  > The visual realization of the "security confidence
estimate" value will
	>  > depend on the user agent and end user abilities.
	>  >
	>  > --- End ---
	>  >
	>  >
	>  > Tim Hahn
	>  > IBM Distinguished Engineer
	>  >
	>  > Internet: hahnt@us.ibm.com
	>  > Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
	>  > phone: 919.224.1565     tie-line: 8/687.1565
	>  > fax: 919.224.2530
	>  >
	>  > [attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by Mary Ellen
Zurko/Westford/IBM]
	>  >
	>  >
	>  >
	>
	>
	>
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 17:05:37 UTC