SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:06PM
from the Wbuaal-qbrf-abg-rira-haqrefgnaq-EBG13 dept.
from the Wbuaal-qbrf-abg-rira-haqrefgnaq-EBG13 dept.
This paper presents the results of a laboratory study involving Mailvelope, a modern PGP client that integrates tightly with existing webmail providers. In our study, we brought in pairs of participants and had them attempt to use Mailvelope to communicate with each other. Our results shown that more than a decade and a half after "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt," modern PGP tools are still unusable for the masses. We finish with a discussion of pain points encountered using Mailvelope, and discuss what might be done to address them in future PGP systems.
The PDF of the study can be found here.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Why Johnny Still Can't Encrypt: Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 69 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If we can ever make red tape nutritional, we can feed the world.
-- R. Schaeberle, "Management Accounting"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2015, @02:21AM
Treating the problem of usability as trivial, not worthy of attention, has been the bane of free software.
Oh bullshit. The Gnome team talks all the time about usability and how user-friendly Gnome3 is. This doesn't mean it's actually all that usable, especially since it's so stripped-down that you can't do anything with it or customize it without jumping through hoops, but it's not like free software devs aren't actually thinking about it, even if they are completely misguided.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday November 09 2015, @03:46AM
Talking and thinking about usability all the time, but not achieving it, is not exactly a ringing endorsement of their commitment. Apple is the usability leader, why can they not simply follow Apple's example? No, they seem determined to reinvent the GUI. As you say, misguided. They need discipline. Gnome3 sounds like the systemd of desktop environments.
I use LXDE/Openbox. Though lighter and faster, it's still a classic example of functional overkill. When I bother to configure Openbox, most of what I do is get rid of a bunch of functionality I don't want or use. Shade/unshade windows? Do not want. Minimize works better. Also don't like having the scroll wheel overloaded with functionality. By default, the scroll wheel scrolls if the mouse pointer is in a window, shades and unshades if on a title bar, and switches desktops if on the desktop. I prefer that it not change functionality based on the mouse pointer location. I am forever whizzing through the desktops when the mouse pointer wanders off the edge of the window I'm scrolling. I want it to scroll the active window no matter where the mouse pointer is, no shading/unshading, no switching between desktops. Why did the devs decide to get fancy? It's like they're entranced by "cool" ideas, eager to implement them, but can't be bothered to test them on users to see if they're actually any good. That's not taking usability seriously.
Another problem both KDE and Gnome suffer more than any other desktop environment is bloat. They're seriously slow and unusable on slow, limited hardware. Could be the "cool" factor contributed to the bloat.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2015, @05:49AM
By default, the scroll wheel scrolls if the mouse pointer is in a window, shades and unshades if on a title bar, and switches desktops if on the desktop. I prefer that it not change functionality based on the mouse pointer location.
Well I prefer that it does. I like being able to scroll background windows without having to change focus.
Why did the devs decide to get fancy? It's like they're entranced by "cool" ideas, eager to implement them, but can't be bothered to test them on users to see if they're actually any good. That's not taking usability seriously.
No, it's giving people the power to have what they want. If you want it configured differently, then do so. If you make it one-size-fits-all, you get Apple crap where it's their way or the highway, which is the exact same philosophy the Gnome3 devs have.
Another problem both KDE and Gnome suffer more than any other desktop environment is bloat. They're seriously slow and unusable on slow, limited hardware.
Gnome3, sure, but for KDE that's completely false. Turn off the indexing stuff and it's fine.