[cap-talk] Google Chrome - web browser with sandboxed rendering
daw at cs.berkeley.edu
Sat Sep 6 00:53:51 CDT 2008
Ben Laurie wrote:
> This particular assertion is beginning to really bug me. Designation
> works fine for files, maybe, and for drag'n'drop, even more maybe (are
> you granting read? write? a communications channel? is it permanent or
> temporary? etc). But I've yet to see any evidence that it makes any
> sense at all in the context of, for example, sockets.
Toby Murray writes:
> That's because sockets are not reified in current user interfaces.
> That's not to suggest that they could not be, however, although it would
> be unconventional. Of course doing so may increase the complexity of the
> mental model that the user now must maintain in order to make safe
I'm concerned this would have poor usability. Forcing users to
understand things like TCP/IP port numbers and raw sockets sounds
pretty dubious to me. I suspect there's a reason those generally
don't appear in user interfaces today.
Interfaces should be designed to meet the needs of the users of our
software, not the needs of the developers who write that software.
I think there must be a better way (or so I hope). I'm not saying
it's an easy problem, but isn't it our job to suck it up and find
something that will be intuitive and understandable for users?
More information about the cap-talk