[cap-talk] v. "untrusted" -> "unidentified"?

Jed at Webstart donnelley1 at webstart.com
Thu Mar 3 14:13:58 EST 2005


At 10:53 AM 3/3/2005, Karp, Alan H wrote:
>Jed Donnelley wrote:
> >
> > I  agree, though as I've argued above I believe the most
> > accurate and least
> > misleading term is "unnamed".
> >
>The danger is that the user will treat petnames as another name space
>for sites.  That's not what they are.

I agree, though I don't believe such confusion is very likely.  There, however,
I'm subject to the same sorts of criticisms that I'm using myself.

>They are used to denote that
>you're talking to a specific organization.  "Unknown" or "May be a
>stranger" would avoid this problem.

OK.  Of the two I prefer "Unknown" - though as I've noted elsewhere that
may be an inaccurate label.

What about "unidentified"?  It avoids the "trust" problems (the major issue
in my opinion).  It also avoids any issues with "naming".  It isn't as
open to inaccuracy as "unknown" (most sites with the default label will
in fact be "known").  It avoids the negatives discussed thus far and I still
believe it provides a reasonably accurate lay understanding of the state
of the lack of Petname binding to the site.

--Jed http://www.webstart.com/jed/ 



More information about the cap-talk mailing list