4 ms·
This is fascinating research! It's one of those things that seems obvious in retrospect, but if it was obvious, why has nobody addressed it before? I have to s
by initram 10y ago
This is fascinating research! It's one of those things that seems obvious in retrospect, but if it was obvious, why has nobody addressed it before?
I have to say, though, the example security alert they show looks like spam to me. I'm not a regular user of Chrome, so maybe that's how they all look, but it looks like it's trying to sell me some seedy 3rd party tool that will "clean up" my settings while really installing malware to show me more ads.
- deargle 10y ago> I'm not a regular user of Chrome, so maybe that's how they all look Interestingly, that's an exact replica of the real Chrome Cleanup Tool that was/is in use when we ran the research (I'm a coauthor). The news article only reports overarching "did they heed the warning" stats, but in the published paper we actually didn't care whether they heeded it or not. We cared how much they deliberated over their decision before making a choice. We measured deliberation, or attention, via mouse cursor movement tracking. For example, straight-line trajectories towards the dismiss button indicate less cognitive attention than do less-than-straight-line trajectories (wavering, hover time, click latency, etc.). If someone deliberated for a long time, they might decide in the end that they thought it was spam. But at least they deliberated instead of making an automatic, hasty decision! Users were more likely to show signs of deliberation when the prompts were shown at low-interference times than they were at high-interference times.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 10y agoI had precisely the same first reaction -- I thought that alert dialog was spam, and was reaching for Firefox Reader Mode to remove it from my view. I had to examine the dialog carefully to realise it was actually part of the story.