[cap-talk] Firefox and identifiability, small steps or large

[Ian G]

David Hopwood wrote:

> The disadvantages of icons are:
>
>  - It isn't practical for the user to create an icon. Therefore it has
>    to be provided in the introduction, which increases the possibilities
>    for confusion and social engineering. With textual names, the user
>    can always choose a name that is meaningful to them.
>
>  - An icon can't be typed. It can only be selected from a list, or
>    referred to indirectly via a textual name. This makes icons less
>    expressive in the sense that you can't use them in many situations
>    where you could use a name, for example in a command line interface.
>
> I would be unsatisfied (both as a user and as a system designer) with
> any system that allowed only icons to be used, i.e. did not always
> permit a textual pet name to be used in place of an icon.
>

A clarification: logos, not icons.

I gather that CapDesk (? I can't recall the
name) has experimented with icons.  I
agree that icons wouldn't add much over
words or phrases.

By logos, I mean a graphical image selected
by the user among a list of graphics.  In
principle, it could be any logo found on the
site, or it could be a picture dragged from
the user's photobook.

I agree that it would be unsatisfactory to
*only* have logos (or icons).  There needs
to be some experimentation here and a
good tool should include several possibilities.
TrustBar has 3 avenues.  That other one I
posted on yesterday was pretty simple it
seems, but the Netcraft one has much more
potential, in another direction.  I personally
was proposing counts and others proposed
times and so forth, but I think the logos/pet/
CA mix is better.

iang

-- 
News and views on what matters in finance+crypto:
        http://financialcryptography.com/