[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EF474E6.6060606@yahoo.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:32:38 +0900
From: 夜神 岩男 <supergiantpotato@...oo.co.jp>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: OT: Firefox question / poll
On 12/21/2011 03:54 AM, metasansana@...il.com wrote:
> I would say usability, by the time it pops up the nasty is probably already done.
> ------Original Message------
> From: Charles Morris
> Sender: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> Subject: [Full-disclosure] OT: Firefox question / poll
> Sent: Dec 20, 2011 13:40
>
> I'm curious what everyone's opinion is on the following question...
> esp. to any FF dev people on list:
>
> Do you think that the Firefox "warning: unresponsive script" is meant
> as a security feature or a usability feature?
Usability.
To begin with, most people click through the DANGER SCREEN warnings
about bad TLS certificates. With this in mind it is obvious that a
developer can't expect the average browser-using population to even know
what a script is.
However, the string("not responding") + situation("browser gets stuck")
resonates with the average retard, so this approach is sensible from a
usability standpoint.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists