4 ms·
Yes. And no. It is very clear, to you. To me. To other people? The evidence doesn't support that claim. So again: was it clear enough? Apparently not. You ca
by richforrester 10y ago
Yes. And no.
It is very clear, to you. To me. To other people? The evidence doesn't support that claim.
So again: was it clear enough? Apparently not.
You can argue about this as long as you want, but interpretation of an interface is not complete until you get the context. Ours is that of someone who's either looking for it, or aware of the possibility of its existence.
If you're neither, perhaps you'd need to be able to see other people's documents as well. Perhaps you need a big ol' warning sign with tick-boxes before you dismiss it.
Maybe the default should be hidden, and sharing made optional. I realise this doesn't make much sense for a "sharing" feature, but maybe it's been labelled wrong. "Sharing" doesn't necessarily (read: "by definition") mean "everyone in the whole world can browse your stuff".
So imo, two parties to blame.
Yes. It's the user's own fault.
No. It's not clear enough.
- cwyers 10y ago> It is very clear, to you. To me. To most other people? The evidence doesn't support that claim. I'm not sure that's clear? The headline says "hundreds" of sensitive documents are on there. How many documents are on there total?
- richforrester 10y agoI'll remove the word "most". Point holds.
- cwyers 10y agoOkay, but what's the acceptable defect rate for users not being able to understand the UI? Because I don't think it's possible to design a UI so unambiguous that a user, no matter how determined, cannot manage to misunderstand it.
- iamben 10y agoSurely the acceptable rate depends on the system? A UI defect in something that could launch missiles, for instance, would be a disaster. As for the design here - how about a big red banner with "by ticking here this document will be available to the public and can be found through search engines" or similar?
- kalleboo 10y agoAnyone given access to a missile system will also be trained in it's usage, so the bar for usability of a missile system is much lower (e.g., it can assume knowledge of military terminology)
- richforrester 10y agoDoesn't mean less care should be given to the interface. Doesn't mean they aren't subject to the monotony of repeating actions each and every day. While they should be able to react quickly, I'm also sure that they have to switch to "able to react quickly mode", and won't always be ready to launch missiles at the push of a single button!
- intopieces 10y ago>but what's the acceptable defect rate for users not being able to understand the UI? Acceptable defect rate is the defect rate that does not result in an Ars article pointing out the defect rate of your product.
- Dylan16807 10y agoOne big misunderstanding could cause an article like that. I don't think that's a workable standard.
- tedunangst 10y agoWhich is zero, because a large part of Ars business model is making a big stir about defects.
- richforrester 10y agoAcceptable rate of UI failure depends on the consequences of misinterpretation of the interface. Apparently, for a document uploading service, this case shows an example that's below the acceptable rate. See it this way; you don't want someone to accidentally trigger a nuclear bomb even once. However you probably don't care that a knife sometimes cuts a finger.
- Spooky23 10y agoIt all depends on the context. Microsoft's audience is for everyone from kids playing Minecraft to corporate O365 users. So it's not surprising that it's a mess. People often assume a level of security at work that doesn't match reality.
- EGreg 10y agoThere are trigger words that should be used, in large type, before posting. Please upload a document to host publicly for anyone on the internet.