[cap-talk] caps and sockets

[John Carlson]

On Sep 5, 2008, at 10:53 PM, David Wagner wrote:
>
> 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
>> designations.
>
> 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.

What about the user interface provided by instant messaging systems?   
This may be virtual sockets (many conversations over one connection).   
You may be able to leverage the OTR GUI: a lock/unlock on each tab/ 
conversation indicating some kind of security.  But I thing that OTR  
still leaves a lot to be desired, e.g. how do I tell who is requesting  
the OTR conversation?

More along those lines, I can designate that I want to send or receive  
files in an IM conversation.  I can grant people the capability (on  
some systems) to communicate with me, and revoke the right.

I would love to see a user interface (a log viewer) that would keep  
track of systems trying to contact my system (firewall stuff).


John