On 2017-03-09 17:26, Paul Syverson wrote:
Interesting, apologies if this is trivial/already-considered-and-bad/etc
No apologies! Thank you for your feedback.
How about settings with names something like Mostly Harmless Basic Minimal
We did iterate through the copy, but this is appreciated since the feedback says we should probably look into things more.
I like your suggestions because they don't associate safety with the settings (which isn't false, but it's not something that we can guarantee people). The more correct thing might be to tell them about the reduced functionality, with a hint to the fact that these measures might protect you.
Avoiding negative things (like things stop working and users don't know why) are much much much more important than including positive thing (like making them feel proactive about their security). The former loses users, the latter is a temporary high at best.
This avoids the direct statement of comparison in the name, so might preclude people avoiding a safer setting they might otherwise choose 'cause it sounds too paranoid. but still shold be clear what order they're in.
I agree. I actually like the progression of standard > something > basic. But that's only my opinion; don't know how users would feel.
(I was going to suggest "Safe" for the highest one, but cringe at ever actually saying that simpliciter. Plus I'm a big Douglas Adams fan. Actually I was also going to suggest "Undici" because, like Starbucks, we could name our largest size with the same big number regardless of whether that still corresponds to any units---except we've got security that goes to _eleven_. OK tired. Need to go home.)
Hmm! This inspires me to work on the copy again. Thanks!
Cheers, Linda
aloha, Paul
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:57:54PM -0600, Linda Naeun Lee wrote:
Hi all:
The results of the security slider usability testing is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wr4e9OftQaIyvU-p2pN9JcdLsOAl9Z87hg4XWW8O...
In short, users seemed to choose the setting that would be right for them, functionality wise, even if they didn’t have good security understanding or mild misconceptions. UI should account for multiple ways of interaction.
Some people said interesting things. Highlights include: -(the "safest" setting has bad connotations) P12: “I’m not sure, I don’t think I’ll be doing anything that would require that amount of safety. *giggles*” -(people making emotional decisions)P13: “I would probably choose the “safe” setting, there's the potential for more content being blocked on the safest setting, and I'm the kind of dum-dum who's willing to take my chances.” -(not understanding on-the-wire vs machine security defenses) P14: “I would choose the standard setting- I’m just going off of the experience I’ve had on the website I currently visit. I have Norton and feel like that keeps my computer pretty safe.”
Cheers, Linda
P.S.: I've been working on a more understandable security slider for a couple months now; documentation here: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/UX/OrfoxSecuritySlider
-- Current Key: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=lindanaeunlee GPG Fingerprint: FA0A C9BE 2881 B347 9F4F C0D7 BE70 F826 5ED2 8FA2 _______________________________________________ tor-project mailing list tor-project@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-project