Text 5442, 211 rader
Skriven 2005-06-26 23:16:42 av Ellen K. (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: An Army of Soulless 1's and 0's
===========================================
From: Ellen K. <72322.1016@compuserve.com>

Click fatigue, that's a good name for it.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:09:56 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
<42bf42be@w3.nls.net>:

>   I agree they don't see (perceive) many things we view as obvious.   It's
not the same as the calendar example since it was, or sounds likes it is,
modeless.  In this case users can not continue without making a choice.  I
believe the issue here is what sometimes gets called click fatigue.  Still, I
don't believe there is an easy solution.  One may be to stop prompting users in
other cases but honestly, I don't see many of these.  Another may be to
surprise the user with buttons with shocking labels like "Run at my own risk"
and "The safe choice".  I think this last option would scare some users enough
to offend them and ultimately is vulnerable to click fatigue.
>
>   BTW, I realized after my earlier message that the icon I included was from
the previous version of the dialog.  The current warning dialog contains one of
the following two icons.
>
>
>
>
>Rich
>
>  "Ellen K." <72322.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:6meub11k9q2ot8fh5h6fs22356o7chekeq@4ax.com...
>  I agree that it is the users' fault if they open dangerous attachments.
>
>  But I remember well from the days when I still did front ends, that
>  USERS DO NOT ACTUALLY SEE MESSAGES.  If a message box appears, they just
>  click OK.   This is very difficult for folks like us to grasp, but
>  that's how it is.  The only way you could probably get them to read
>  something would be if you blacked the entire screen and displayed a
>  flashing neon-bright message.
>
>  I remember one application where I let the users assign tasks to other
>  users and they were supposed to click on a calendar to indicate the date
>  by which the task was to be completed.  The calendar was right there on
>  the screen at all times, approximately 1.25" high x 1.75" wide.  The
>  president of the company for which I was creating the application, a
>  highly intelligent engineer, when I was training him on this
>  functionality, said "What calendar?  I don't see a calendar."
>
>  Now for the interesting part:  Shortly after this exchange I went out to
>  dinner at a salad-bar type restaurant with a childhood friend who is an
>  interior designer, i.e. a totally right-brain person.  On the way to the
>  restaurant in the car I told her this story.  Once in the restaurant, as
>  we were moving along the food displays I complained that I would like to
>  know what each dish was instead of having to guess.  She pointed out
>  that there were in fact little labels slightly above our eye level on a
>  vertical glass partition at the edge of the display area, and said
>  "That's your calendar."
>
>
>  On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:10:39 -0700, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
>  <42befca1@w3.nls.net>:
>
>  >   Icons for attachments are reliable, as much as extensions.  A skull and
cross bones would loose info and make no difference.  As you continue to deny
or ignore, there is a big bold warning when attempting to open an unsafe
attachment with the standard warning icon
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >It still gets ignored.  Why would you think that a more obscure image with
nothing explain it would not be ignored more than the big bold warning they get
today?
>  >
>  >Rich
>  >
>  >  "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:42bef57c@w3.nls.net...
>  >  Icons are not a reliable way to determine file type. File extensions are
still being hidden from the user. If OE would simply display a skull and
crossbones icon for any type of executable file extension type it would go a
long way to making the users more aware of the dangerous attachments.
>  >
>  >  Geo.
>  >    "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42bef4a5@w3.nls.net...
>  >       Maybe, because the people are told they are pictures.  It doesn't
matter.  As for you trying to connect this to the NYT artcle, you are either as
much an idiot as tony or you too have not read even the lead in which describes
downloading from the web.  Your fixation on email and your false claims on the
subject have no relevance.  If you believe the author of the New York Times
article was wrong or lying you should ask him.
>  >
>  >       I should remind you again of one particular false claim you make in
an attempt to mislead folks into believing your nonsense.  There is a big bold
warning for unsafe attachments and not for safe ones.  This is how people can
clearly tell the difference.  Well, some people.  Obviously you can not.
>  >
>  >    Rich
>  >
>  >      "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:42bef09e@w3.nls.net...
>  >      Rich,
>  >
>  >      How could people mistake them for pictures if it's so clear the way
the UI shows the difference between executable attachments and non-executable
attachments?
>  >
>  >      Duh, if that doesn't highlight the real problem for you then you are
more blind than the users.
>  >
>  >      Geo.
>  >        "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42beec78@w3.nls.net...
>  >           You may not be hypocritical but many complained that it is
Outlook's fault that it allowed people to open unsafe attachments even with the
harsh warnings.  As you note, people ignore the warnings.  If unsafe
attachments were allowed again would you praise Microsoft for providing the
choice or criticize Microsoft as you have for provding the choice to users even
if unsafe?  Given your "I don't know" answer below I don't think you are in a
position criticize.
>  >
>  >           As for making the Internet look like your own disk, I think you
position is nonsense for several reasons.  The first is that the Internet does
not look like your own disk.  Another is that it doesn't matter as Internet vs.
local is not an issue.  I think you are confusing it with trusted vs.
distrusted both of which apply to both local, the Internet, and the intranet or
home network.
>  >
>  >           Also you appear to have not read the lead in to the article that
spawned this thread.  Let's quote it again
>  >
>  >          For thousands of Internet users, the offer seemed all too
alluring: revealing pictures of Jennifer Lopez, available at a mere click of
the mouse.
>  >
>  >          But the pictures never appeared. The offer was a ruse, and the
click downloaded software code that turned the user's computer into a launching
pad for Internet warfare.
>  >
>  >
>  >        As you can't see, the users are taking an explicit action to
download something they want to download from the Internet.
>  >
>  >        Rich
>  >
>  >
>  >          "John Beckett" <FirstnameSurname@compuserve.com.omit> wrote in
message news:42be76c6.33472751@216.144.1.254...
>  >          "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:<42be015f@w3.nls.net>:
>  >          >    I don't see an easy answer.  The issue is not that users are
warned
>  >          > when there is no reason too, it's that they got lucky.  A
better analogy
>  >          > than a combination lock is Russian roulette.  It's always
dangerous
>  >          > which is why there is a warning.  What would you do?
>  >          >
>  >          >    On a related note, how do you make a user that just wants
things to
>  >          > "work" and clicks OK because it doesn't "work" if he makes
another
>  >          > choice to care about such choices?  You can remove the choice
which is
>  >          > the position taken with Outlook and dangerous attachments.
There were
>  >          > plenty that complained including folks here when that happened.
>  >
>  >          You're right, and in relation to 'what would I do?', all I can
say is that
>  >          I don't know.
>  >
>  >          However, what I *do* know is that the original plan to make the
Internet
>  >          look like your own disk drive, with Help and all manner of other
>  >          hair-brained schemes getting stuff from the Internet, was a *bad*
idea.
>  >
>  >          To be more accurate, incorporating the Internet is a *great*
idea, but
>  >          only *if* you first have a way to make it reasonably secure. I
wouldn't
>  >          mind a few bugs that created vulnerabilities with consequent
damage. But
>  >          the disasters from the simple exploits ("click here to undress
Jennifer")
>  >          are rather predictable.
>  >
>  >          If I wanted to dominate world computing and own the Internet, and
if I had
>  >          a spare billion for R&D, I would have proceeded with a little
more
>  >          humility and caution than Microsoft.
>  >
>  >          In relation to Outlook blocking dangerous attachments: I am one
of those
>  >          who loudly complained about the astonishing arrogance of a
program that
>  >          failed to deliver my mail. This is typical of Microsoft's
attitude - I am
>  >          so stupid that I must be managed. I would actually be happy to
accept that
>  >          conclusion *if* there weren't thousands of compromised Windows
computers
>  >          that form a testimonial to the failure of Windows to securely
access the
>  >          Internet.
>  >
>  >          The real reason I whine about this issue so much is that I am
totally
>  >          infuriated with the complete success of the Microsoft PR team who
have
>  >          managed some incredible security debacles with astonishing
success.
>  >
>  >          John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)