<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Shape Of Firefox 3.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2007/11/15/the-shape-of-firefox-30/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2007/11/15/the-shape-of-firefox-30/</link>
	<description>Robert Accettura&#039;s Personal Blog on Web Development and Tech</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:07:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnathan Nightingale</title>
		<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2007/11/15/the-shape-of-firefox-30/comment-page-1/#comment-222124</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnathan Nightingale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2007/11/15/the-shape-of-firefox-30/#comment-222124</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Iâ€™d personally like to see the lock stay in the UI, but itâ€™s meaning redefined. For a decade or more, the public has been told that the best way to tell if your information is safe is to look for the lock. Iâ€™d venture 99% of the general population doesnâ€™t really know it symbolizes the use of SSL. They just know that it means your information is â€œsafeâ€?.</p></blockquote>
<p>I totally understand that, but I&#8217;ll offer a few points to consider, on the off chance that you haven&#8217;t already.  First off, 99% of the general public doesn&#8217;t notice the lock, understanding or no.  Sad, but repeatably demonstrated in academic research like <a href="http://people.deas.harvard.edu/~rachna/papers/why_phishing_works.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://people.deas.harvard.edu....._works.pdf</a> . Those that do are as likely to trust the ones in content as the one in chrome.  The same studies find that the vast majority of people do look to the location bar for identity information though, so hope is not lost if we can find a way of communicating more clearly (and non-annoyingly) in the places users already look.</p>
<p>Second, as other commenters have beaten me to pointing out, the lock DOESN&#8217;T mean &#8220;safe&#8221; and that&#8217;s the problem.  Ask non-sophisticated users, and they have all kinds of expectations about what that lock means that aren&#8217;t borne out by what it actually represents.  Telling them to look for the lock to know they&#8217;re safe is the big lie we&#8217;ve been telling, and that&#8217;s something that I don&#8217;t think we should do.  It makes them feel safer without being safer &#8211; I like making people feel safe, but I don&#8217;t like them being spoofed by the bankofamerica phishing site that actually goes and buys a $20 cert (though see above, that&#8217;s rarely necessary since most people don&#8217;t notice.)</p>
<p>Last, I&#8217;ll point out that I&#8217;m not at all immune to the argument that even if we think we&#8217;re going in a better direction, weaning people off what they&#8217;re used to should be done gently.  Clicking the site button popups up an identity dialog, which includes, when the connection is encrypted, a padlock which says as much.  The padlock is fine as a symbol for encryption, but encryption is not the same as safety, and giving encryption so much top-billing as safety does users a disservice.  It is also, incidentally, still in the status bar.  Baby steps.</p>
<p>Johnath</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DigDug</title>
		<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2007/11/15/the-shape-of-firefox-30/comment-page-1/#comment-222064</link>
		<dc:creator>DigDug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2007/11/15/the-shape-of-firefox-30/#comment-222064</guid>
		<description>I think the whole point of removing the lock was that they didn&#039;t want people saying &quot;Still in regards to safety, look for the lock.&quot; An encrypted connection is not necessarily safe. I&#039;m more in favor of trying to explain things to users though, rather than just remove them. There should be a way to visually show users that data is being encrypted. There should be an someway to visually explain to users that FF does (or more importantly does not) know who its sending that encrypted info to. Neither of those should imply anything to the user about whether or not a site is safe. The present solution just seems like a... compromise between UI people are used to, and UI that is actually useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the whole point of removing the lock was that they didn&#8217;t want people saying &#8220;Still in regards to safety, look for the lock.&#8221; An encrypted connection is not necessarily safe. I&#8217;m more in favor of trying to explain things to users though, rather than just remove them. There should be a way to visually show users that data is being encrypted. There should be an someway to visually explain to users that FF does (or more importantly does not) know who its sending that encrypted info to. Neither of those should imply anything to the user about whether or not a site is safe. The present solution just seems like a&#8230; compromise between UI people are used to, and UI that is actually useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Kasting</title>
		<link>http://robert.accettura.com/blog/2007/11/15/the-shape-of-firefox-30/comment-page-1/#comment-221843</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Kasting</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2007/11/15/the-shape-of-firefox-30/#comment-221843</guid>
		<description>Preserving the lock but changing its meaning would open Mozilla to a wealth of criticism about misleading internet users.  IMO it has been a mistake from the start to tell people that SSL = &quot;safe&quot;, and it should have been stopped long ago.  Instead the lock and other SSL UI has become more and more prominent over time, further reinforcing this misconception.  If we ever want people to be truly safe, the cycle must be broken, and sooner is easier.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Preserving the lock but changing its meaning would open Mozilla to a wealth of criticism about misleading internet users.  IMO it has been a mistake from the start to tell people that SSL = &#8220;safe&#8221;, and it should have been stopped long ago.  Instead the lock and other SSL UI has become more and more prominent over time, further reinforcing this misconception.  If we ever want people to be truly safe, the cycle must be broken, and sooner is easier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

