On Apr 16, 12:21 pm, Chad Etzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Regarding my "buyer beware" comment: > I do agree that some/most of the onus is on Twitter to communicate > what exactly is happening (I'm also for stronger language), but users > do have to use their brains at some point and quit blindly trusting > everything that turns their mouse into a hand-pointer.
I hate to sound like a curmudgeon, but requiring people to use their brains is a recipe for disappointment and mild disaster. It's not that people are dumb per se, it's just that 1) any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic and 2) most technology looks like magic to people and as a result will click through any warning screen you toss up to get the prize on the other side. Why is phishing effective? Exactly. Now, for the small small percent of users who will review these screens, I think that they SHOULD be useful and informative. The funny thing about the way that people plow through user interfaces is that, once burned, they tend to be a little more hesitant next time — so if you DO provide useful information to them, someday they might actually read it. So, in sum, this comes down to doing the best you can, being as useful as you can without getting TOO much in the way and then tweak tweak tweak. Chris
