[Freedombox-discuss] Initial User Experience (was: Tor .onion domains)
On 11-05-09 at 08:23pm, Michael Blizek wrote:
> On 19:49 Mon 09 May , Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> ...
> > > - or none if the user wants to be invisible.
> >
> > If the user wants to be invisible then the user will avoid [c], and
> > possibly [b] as well.
> ...
> > > It is not having a domain which is dangerous. But having a dyndns name
> > > which links your name with your IP address is. The user may think he
> > > is at least somewhat anonymous due to a dynamic IP.
> >
> > I wrote "name" (not "dns"). A relationship *must* be established
> > between the box and you(r laptop or cellphone or whatever). I propose
> > as user expecience for that to baptize the box.
>
> It makes a bit more sense now. However, I still do not not see what
> the user would have to do, if he does not want to connect to the box
> from outside the LAN. He could connect to e.g. 192.168.1.171 (as
> written in the handbook - he has to do this the first time anyway).
> Why does the user have to enter a name in this case?
>
> The next question is then how should the name look? Should it resolve
> to an IP? Then we have the same problem as with DNS. This name would
> have to be e.g. an .onion address to be safe. But I guess this is not
> what you had in mind...
I deliberately do not "have in mind" at all.
You want .onion. Fine - I don't care (for this discussion)!
Can we now please get back to talking user experience design?
You envision a handbook that instructs the user to type in a specific IP
number, which somehow ensures it is the correct box?
> > I deliberately avoid the underlying technical details (tying a name
> > to a cryptography token) as I want to discuss User Experience here,
> > not technical implementation. Think "WebID" everywhere I write
> > "name" if you really really must have a concrete example, but please
> > stick to general principles, not specific implementations, in this
> > discussion: Some followers on this list are UX designers, that are
> > helped if such discussions are uncluttered from noisy details about
> > other aspects.
>
> The problem with this is that the "noisy details" can make big
> differences...
How does it affect user experience if the nickname of the box resolves
of an .onion vs. an ip number?!?
> I do *not* want FB to get it the way if a user wants to publish
> something. But I also do not want it to promote things which can be
> dangerous without warning - or even do them silently. This is a fine
> line.
So we perfectly agree?
> > > You could ask the user questions like:
> > > [ ] I want to stay in contact with friends
> > > [ ] I want to publish
> > > [ ] ...
> >
> > Yes. Looks quite close to what I proposed.
>
> The difference between first asking for a name and then asking what
> the user wants to do and the other way round looks pretty big to me.
How is that a big difference, when it is *not* a dns name but a nickname
we are talking about?!?
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110509/cead3fd9/attachment.pgp>
Reply to: