Based on a study where people were put in 3 scenarios - no need of obfuscation - needed a bridge - needed PT

many people ended up in the configuration settings 
many people ended up stuck on trying to configurate proxy - while  in most cases people don't need that.
the name of the PT influenced the one they picked - more friendly names were the prefered one
most people configured with obfs bridge because is what is suggested
that is more cases in their wiki:

they created a new interface that they look for our feedback - after they get our feedback they will bring in more people around 120 to test it.

where the people familiar with the terminology, words like bridge, proxy? 
No, they only told them to use tor - some people had used tor (they picked this people to see if they would do better)

Why they decide to add the proxy as a first thing - is because now the dection is automatically and is communicated to the user so is more clear to them and less confusing.

Also because if they do need a proxy, you need to configure that because they can get a bridge - so in this case it makes it easier for the user to understand what is going on.

The problem here is people who are not using a proxy and the Tor browser asks if they are and they don't know what to say and think they do need and get stuck in the configuration.

People under censorship might be confuse if they are using a proxy to bypass censorship and it might sound to them that we are asking for that proxy which is not the case.

The recommendation we have for them on how to figure out is not very useful because they would go to the other browser and try to find where they learn if they are using it or not and end up stuck in this mode of searching for the information.

Biggest change was to try to make users having only one decision to make for each step and make it less intimidating. And make the process more meaninful and specially because it takes only 3 min. Sometimes the error messages are helpful sometimes it just say 'done' which is not too helpful for the person. 
Success feedback was super helpful.

Could we try to connect to a bridge first and if it fails you would tell the user that they might need a proxy, instead of checking the proxy is needed first. A case that can happens in this scneario is that the bridge could be down and that would just increase more confusion to the user.

We are thinking or ordering the dropdown menu list of PTs by the recommended order to see if they should try in that order. 

If a bridge fails we are asking them to come back and try another one. Maybe we should be doing that for the user. Trying different bridges till it works.  There was an idea of an option for the user that says 'I know what I am doing try to connect for me' and we would just do all the different tests and try it for them. 

Because the connection to the network takes longer than most apps and there was no feedback to the user of what is going on just the green bar, the user would just think things were not working not that is normal to take a long time. 

The reason we didn't make the choice equal because we want them to try to connect first. Right now they are presented almost as equal which increase confusion.

'Configure Manually' - we added the word 'Manually' to make sure that will involve some investiment from the user, because some people had a perception that it would happen automatically and go in that direction first thinking it would be automatically.

Test icons and UIs to build UX guidelines so is consistancy accross different products (mobile, desktop, browsers, IMs etc)

Study how is the behaviour of the dialogs in different OS. We should follow the platform UX - for instance on Mac the green button at the end of the dialog box is not consistent with how other dialog boxes end in Mac, there is no green button.

Would be better to change 'recommended' for 'default'. Would be interesting to also explore trying 'open' instead of 'connect' because for some people they just 'installed' and now they want to 'open' the application.

It seems that by avoiding probing automatically for the user to see what works, we are making them to probe manually. 

How much trying automatically differs from manually matters on the fact of exposing the user is trying to use Tor?

Even when an user clicks on 'connect' to connect directly they are already exposing them to a network observer they are trying to use Tor. So maybe, having 'configure automatically' right under it wouldn't be a problem in the matter of exposing the user is trying to use Tor.

Would be good to have a particular sets of UX guidelines for developers as they are building features to help them make these decisions. The UX team is trying to do that for developers, document the problems, hypothesis, and solutions to build a memory for people to understand why the UI looks the way it looks.

We should also have guidelines for UX research that helps researchers to take into consideration things like, font changes from a version to another of the operation system that will present the product in a different way to users.

Last modified 3 years ago Last modified on Mar 18, 2016, 11:46:06 PM