Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
3,599
edits
Papers:Sending the Right Signals: Difference between revisions
Papers:Sending the Right Signals (view source)
Revision as of 08:57, 26 January 2006
, 26 January 2006→IRL vs. Online
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Sadly, however, it is entirely possible that Jane had stumbled upon a malicious website which was impersonating a legitimate travel business. Jane may have just provided that malicious user with her personal identification and credit information. | Sadly, however, it is entirely possible that Jane had stumbled upon a malicious website which was impersonating a legitimate travel business. Jane may have just provided that malicious user with her personal identification and credit information. | ||
= IRL vs. Online = | = Signals, IRL vs. Online = | ||
The physical world is obviously different from the online world. What is less obvious is that we all carry a set of expectations and experiences -- a "default philosophy" -- based on our real world experiences, and we interpret everything through this philosophy, including our "virtual world" experiences online (for more on this idea, see ''[http://www.smallpieces.com/ Small Pieces, Loosely Joined]'' by David Weinberger) However, there are some fundamental differences between signals available to an individual in the physical and online worlds, and it is these differences that make internet users so vulnerable to attack. | |||
* '''Tangibility:''' Perhaps the most obvious difference is that the physical world is tangible whereas the | * '''Tangibility:''' Perhaps the most obvious difference is that the physical world is tangible whereas the virtual world is not. When an individual visits a location in the physical world, they can examine it directly and in many dimensions. In the virtual world we are limited to the dimensions presented to us by the software used to view the virtual objects. As a result, we experience objects in the physical world in many more dimensions than those of the virtual. The additional dimensions (such as weight, smell, depth, tactile sensation) all provide contextual signals which are absent from objects in the virtual world, and which can contribute to one's evaluation of trust. | ||
* '''Cost of Impersonation:''' | * '''Cost of Impersonation:''' Closely related to tangibility is the cost of impersonation. Because physical world objects must be convincing in so many dimensions, and because the human brain is so adept at recognizing patterns and exceptions to patterns, the task of impersonating an entity in the real world is is both complex and costly. Virtual world objects, on the other hand, are easy to impersonate as they exist in far fewer dimensions, and can be duplicated with almost no cost or complexity. | ||
* '''Familiarity:''' The virtual world is new and unfamiliar to many of its users. As a result, there is less of an expectation of how an entity should appear in the virtual world. While it is true that many virtual entities such as banks have patterned themselves after one another (ie: similar features, navigation structure and use of a prominent client login area) these patterns are young and malleable. The physical world, on the other hand, has well established patterns that result in a expectation of what an entity such as a bank would look like (ie: tellers, thick doors, slips of paper, a security guard.) | * '''Familiarity:''' As individuals, we have existed in the physical world for our entire lives. As a civilization, we have existed in the physical world for hundreds of years. This familiarity yeilds expectations of how objects in the physical world will look, feel and behave. The virtual world, on the other hand, is new and unfamiliar to many of its users. As a result, there is less of an expectation of how an entity should appear in the virtual world. While it is true that many virtual entities such as banks have patterned themselves after one another (ie: similar features, navigation structure and use of a prominent client login area) these patterns are young and malleable. The physical world, on the other hand, has well established patterns that result in a expectation of what an entity such as a bank would look like (ie: tellers, thick doors, slips of paper, a security guard.) | ||
* '''Consistency:''' Signals from the physical world are consistantly presented to us through our own senses. We cannot modify our senses, merely intepret the signals that we recieve through them. In the virtual world, however, there is an intermediary between the | * '''Consistency:''' Signals from the physical world are consistantly presented to us through our own senses. We cannot modify our senses, merely intepret the signals that we recieve through them. In the virtual world, however, there is an intermediary between the object and our senses. The software used to present a virtual object presents signals about that object in an arbitrary fashion. As a result, signals from the virtual world are not neccessarily consistently presented, but are instead dependent on the tool with which we are viewing the virtual object. | ||
Evaluations of trust in the physical world are assisted by the fact that entities are tangible, costly to impersonate, familiar and consistently interpreted by our own senses. In the virtual world, however, we are hindered by the fact that entities are intangible, easily impersonated, unfamiliar and interpreted by clients that are not neccessarily consistent. | Evaluations of trust in the physical world are assisted by the fact that entities are tangible, costly to impersonate, familiar and consistently interpreted by our own senses. In the virtual world, however, we are hindered by the fact that entities are intangible, easily impersonated, unfamiliar and interpreted by clients that are not neccessarily consistent. | ||
Any solution that aims to simplify the task of evaluating trustworthiness in the virtual world therefore needs to address these limitations on our abilities. The virtual world is however by definition intangible, and by | Any solution that aims to simplify the task of evaluating trustworthiness in the virtual world therefore needs to address these limitations on our abilities. The virtual world is however filled with objects that are by definition intangible, by design easily impersonated, and by immaturity unfamiliar. The only factor within our control is consistency of how signals are presented to the user. | ||
= Signals Presented by Web Browsers = | = Signals Presented by Web Browsers = | ||