2013-02-25 / OTI
In Part 1, we came up with a list of security features Commotion lacked. We took this list of unimplemented security features and used OSHA's hazard communication guide to clarify our language:
- Instructions are more likely to be followed if consequences are described.
- Sentences that include a long string of effects or other items can be made clearer by putting them into list.
- Keep sentences short and direct. Use no more than two subordinate clauses. Use the active voice as much as possible. Use short words of one or two syllables as much as possible. Choose commonly used, familiar words, but avoid colloquialisms and slang.
- Use only common abbreviations and acronyms, and then give their definition as soon after their first use as possible. Occasionally, however, an abbreviation or acronym may be so familiar to intended audiences that it may be used without a definition. In fact, some may be more familiar than the full name (e.g., OSHA, EPA, SARA, F, C, TLV, and TWA)
Our first change was to move the negative “does not” that is stated in the header into each statement. This ensures that each statement can be read out of context of the whole with full meaning intact and gave us greater freedom in our wording on each line. We then switched the focus from attacks that Commotion does not protect against to consequences that come from lack of feature sets. For example, we removed "malware" in favor of highlighting the result of data and identity insecurity. We then went through each statement to remove jargon/acronyms and make the language more active. **WARNING! **Commotion:
- Cannot hide your identity
- Does not prevent monitoring of internet traffic
- Does not provide strong security against monitoring over the mesh
- Can be jammed with radio/data-interference
In accordance to ANZI "Product Safety Signs and Labels" , the term "warning indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury." We felt that this was appropriate for the current non-secure release of Commotion. The next highest level, "danger" is "to be limited to the most extreme situations." We will reserve this warning for our future release of a "secure" Commotion distribution to emphasize the ways in which it does not provide full security. We hope this escalation will signal to users of Commotion for secure communication that they put themselves in danger by assuming security where it does not exist. In the future, as we have translation done on our documentation, we will also work with translators to ensure that region-specific translations are not direct translations, but instead clearly convey the warnings to the users in the most understandable way. With our language solidified, we started on our second question: How do we ensure the "ability of the individual reading [the warning] to understand the information sufficiently to take the desired action" for their specific situation? The first thing that we did was look for existing literature on warning labels in software, which was sorely lacking. So, we turned to warning labels on tobacco, drugs, and dangerous machinery. "A review of the science base to support the development of health warnings for tobacco packages" is an interesting read for its own merit, and was a great resource in helping us ensure that the warning was in the best possible site placement to reach our users.
- ...shoppers typically start at the dominant visual element (often the brand name), and are then drawn to the next strongest element (usually the next most dominant visual element).
- A related and important point is that viewing patterns are driven by packaging layout rather than a function of “what people want to look at” or what they think is important. In other words, the fact that a message is frequently missed or overlooked does not mean that shoppers think it is unimportant. It simply means that the message was not adequately highlighted on the package...
- In the few seconds that shoppers typically spend looking at a package, they can actively consider only three or four primary design elements... Research repeatedly found that adding extra messages does not usually increase packaging viewing time, but instead results in more elements fighting for attention in a ‘zero-sum’ game. Package viewing patterns suggest that the “less is more” axiom is nearly always true...
- Package viewing patterns are largely consistent across cultures and product categories because they are driven mainly by human physiology rather than by cultural patterns of preferences.
- Is it important for a packaging design to establish a dominant viewing flow that leads consumers from their “start point” to the other critical packaging elements... What doesn’t work well is a balanced lay out in which the main visual starts consumers in the middle and the other design elements surrounding it are all secondary. The ineffective balanced layout forces consumers to ‘randomly’ choose among directions, and this often causes them to miss important / key elements of the labeling.