Talk:Papers:Sending the Right Signals: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= beltzner, Jan 25th, 3am PST = | = beltzner, Jan 25th, 3am PST = | ||
* first draft completed and ready for comment | * first draft completed and ready for comment | ||
** feel free to make grammatical/spelling edits inline, I haven't bothered to do that check yet | |||
** if you find it easier to insert comments in the text itself, again, feel free | |||
* with screenshots, this will be 4 pages in length | * with screenshots, this will be 4 pages in length | ||
* I used "trustworthiness" a lot, instead of "authentication"; is that OK? | * I used "trustworthiness" a lot, instead of "authentication"; is that OK? | ||
* I | * dbaron said that the goal of these meetings was to generate discussion, and that was the approach I took as opposed to attempting to design the perfect UI, since the underlying technologies aren't neccessarily finalized, and since it's not yet determined if there will be multi-level authentication or preferred CAs. As a result, I tried to keep the position paper at a general level, commenting on what's needed as criteria for success for any solution. That said, I tacked on some simple proposals at the end :) | ||
* On a re-read, I think I might need to tie together the idea that I'm approaching this from a "how do we make online authentication as close as possible to the real world equivalent" or "what can we learn about how we already make these judgements in order to apply that to the UI" perspective. | |||
* I'm rambling, aren't I? I'll stop now. | |||
Revision as of 11:24, 25 January 2006
beltzner, Jan 25th, 3am PST
- first draft completed and ready for comment
- feel free to make grammatical/spelling edits inline, I haven't bothered to do that check yet
- if you find it easier to insert comments in the text itself, again, feel free
- with screenshots, this will be 4 pages in length
- I used "trustworthiness" a lot, instead of "authentication"; is that OK?
- dbaron said that the goal of these meetings was to generate discussion, and that was the approach I took as opposed to attempting to design the perfect UI, since the underlying technologies aren't neccessarily finalized, and since it's not yet determined if there will be multi-level authentication or preferred CAs. As a result, I tried to keep the position paper at a general level, commenting on what's needed as criteria for success for any solution. That said, I tacked on some simple proposals at the end :)
- On a re-read, I think I might need to tie together the idea that I'm approaching this from a "how do we make online authentication as close as possible to the real world equivalent" or "what can we learn about how we already make these judgements in order to apply that to the UI" perspective.
- I'm rambling, aren't I? I'll stop now.