On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Tom Ritter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 March 2014 21:24, Trevor Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> - We have two participants speaking fingerprints aloud to each other. >>> Do we want them to do it over a cell phone to add difficulty, or just >>> omit that bit? >> >> I think speaking over a phone is a good case to test, because in >> person you could also use QR codes, or just look at each other's >> screens. A landline might provide more consistent voice quality than >> cellphone. > > It's true two tests over cellphones may get different voice quality. > I tend to think the difference between tests would in this case be > okay, because it's a real world factor people ahve to deal with... but > I could go either way.
My concern is that if you do a bunch of base32 tests one day and sentence tests the next, differences in the phones used or cell reception might bias the results. Landlines might make it easier to provide a constant voice-quality experience. Alternatively, if you mixed the tests across days and across different cellphones, maybe you could argue that the voice-quality variability is the same for everything?, though that seems more complicated. Perhaps just flag this debate, and Christine's UI researchers could decide, since I think this is getting close to the point at which professionals should be involved. >> Other: >> >> * I think a printed biz card may not work well w/high-resolution >> visual fingerprints, so maybe doing it on a small phone screen is >> better? > > I actually wasn't planning on doing a printed visual fingerprint... I > suppose I could though. I don't think the phone screen would work, > because it's not terribly common to have someone's fingerprint on your > phone and then try to verify it on your desktop. > >> * When comparing aloud, I would suggest also having a time limit >> designed to provoke a fairly high error rate, so the same methodology >> is applied to all modes of use. Otherwise, there's two variables in >> the read-aloud case (time, error rate), so not as easy to compare >> different formats. Having the tester record "how many times the >> participants asks the other to repeat the last token, slow down, or >> otherwise change how they're reciting it" seems subjective and >> unnecessary. > > I added in the time limit. I don't think it would be subjective (it > seems pretty clear to me that if someone asks for a repeat we record > it, if someone asks for them to slow down, we record it, etc). What if I say "uhhh...ok" to confirm I've heard the last group, but also subtly slow-down the rate at which you're saying things? What if I say "that was an 'A', right?" What if I repeat every group after you say it? > As for > as necessity, we could of course not capture that information, but I > feel like it's relevant. For example: if we get successful results > for English words with no repetitions, but successful results on > pseudowords with tons of repetitions - are english words not better? I'd argue that success rate on the fixed-time distinguishing test is a better metric. I.e. if given 12 seconds to talk, people can distinguish matching/not-matching pseudowords 80% of the time, but only 30% of time for English words, that seems more meaningful, even if more repetitions / interactivity are used for the pseudowords. >> * Should there be a handwritten test, i.e. one user handwrites the >> fingerprint for the other? > > I don't think it's worth the additional testing... It may be too much given resources, but perhaps worth mentioning as another test which might bring different things to light. Trevor _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
