Bob Lord wrote: > This pencil and lock icons behave much like the "online" switch to the > right. They indicate the user's intended mode without guaranteeing > anything. You may try to set the online switch to online, but there's > no guarantee that you'll be able to access web resources. You might > not be connected to a network. Likewise, clicking the lock icon to > close it indicates your intention to encrypt the message. It does not > tell you if you'll succeed. You can look at the Send button for that > information
Sure, I understood that part of the spec, I just wonder whether users are conditioned to think that a lock with closed shackle indicates that some type of security is in effect, when in this case it is not necessarily so. Current use of the same icon elsewhere conveys state, not intention. I doubt very much that users will equate a disabled Send button with an inability to get all the right certs. My guess is they'll just think the app is busted, again :-( >> Would the shackle return to open after you clicked it? > > Yes. Like the online switch, it goes between two states. In this > case: locked and unlocked. What I meant to ask is whether the shackle would immediately return to the open state (in the case where the message could not be encrypted) to indicate that the message was not yet secure. That's what I'd expect. In the case where it could be encrypted, the sound of a good lock snapping closed would be a nice addition too. >> Is the shackle even sufficient as an indicator? (I know I have >> trouble seeing it in the spec, less so in the current product) > > > Do you have trouble see it because it's small, or because it's off in > the corner? Hard to say, since it is so subjective, but I'm guessing size, color, contrast of the icon in the spec itself. As I said, I don't have problems with the lock icons used in the current product (with Classic skin, anyway) or Communicator. > One difference between the lock icon on a web page and the lock icon > in the mail compose window is that in the latter there isn't much > information to report. In Communicator, clicking the lock icon in > mail compose would tell you (a) if you could sign the message and (b) > if you could encrypt the message. This design shows both without > having to click. If it was just informational, rather than a control, it could reliably indicate whether the message was currently 'secure', and clicking on it could give further information, such as why it was still not secure (haven't set the pref, haven't asked for the message to be encrypted, don't have certs for George and Colin,...) As it is, the icon just shows that you have requested encryption, and I'm guessing the closed shackle will make people think it will be sent encrypted. > Outlook has big Sign and Encrypt icons in their toolbar. That takes > up more space, but is much more clear for per-message settings. That's the model I was thinking of. They are much easier targets to hit, and would leave the lock and pen icons free to clearly indicate state, or provide further info. > We did talk about that type of design. However, the other icons in > the task bar perform functions (e.g. Send the message, open the > address book, etc.) and the sign/encrypt icons show the user's > preferences. I don't think such sign/encrypt icons would show prefs, they would be clear affordances for signing and encrypting *this* message. Peter
