UI terminology for calculated validities
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Tue Apr 22 23:44:39 CEST 2014
On 04/22/2014 03:57 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> Perhaps the novice interface should just stick to "validity" and do away with
> the whole concept of ownertrust to keep things simple. Suggest that people meet
> up with someone and sign their key personally if they want validity.
> Also, I think the word "trust" by itself should probably be avoided everywhere.
> The word "ownertrust" is uncommon enough that people might be more inclined to
> look up what it means, instead of thinking they already know what "trust" means.
These proposals from Peter have the merits of simplicity and clarity. I
like the idea of starting from this place, and allowing users to dig in
deeper if they want to.
We could do a much better job of facilitating keysigning to reflect
users' beliefs in a robust way as well, whether that's done with
non-exportable signatures from hidden signing keys or some other way.
This would make Peter's proposal even more usable for the novice user
and be convenient for experienced users too.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1010 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users