National Bureau of Economic Research

Nationwide News Pty Limited

Societe Geographique de Liege

Raising the retirement age seems to be an invitation for demographic disaster.

Key provisions include user protection, reforms in the right of way, optimal spectrum utilisation, and the introduction of biometric identification for new SIMs

Jason Bahl joins the show to talk about the GraphQL and WordPress connection, his work on WP GraphQL plugin, Faust and Atlas from WP Engine, Jamstack and Wordpress, and more.

Molly Wilson and Eileen Wagner battle the age old Christmas issues of right and wrong, good and evil, and how the messages we send through iconography design can impact the decisions users make around important issues of security. Are you icons wise men, or are they actually King Herod?

Congratulations, you’re locked out! The paradox of security visuals

Designers of technology are fortunate to have an established visual language at our fingertips. We try to use colors and symbols in a way that is consistent with people’s existing expectations. When a non-designer asks a designer to “make it intuitive,” what they’re really asking is, “please use elements people already know, even if the concept is new.”

Lots of options for security icons

We’re starting to see more consistency in the symbols that tech uses for privacy and security features, many of them built into robust, standardized icon sets and UI kits. To name a few: we collaborated with Adobe in 2018 to create the Vault UI Kit, which includes UI elements for security, like touch ID login and sending a secure copy of a file. Adobe has also released a UI kit for cookie banners.

Even UI kits that aren’t specialized in security and privacy include icons that can be used to communicate security concepts, like InVision’s Smart Home UI Kit. And, of course, nearly every icon set has security-related symbols, from Material Design to Iconic.

Many of these icons allude to physical analogies for the states and actions we’re trying to communicate. Locks and keys; shields for protection; warning signs and stop signs; happy faces and sad faces. Using these analogies helps build a bridge from the familiar, concrete world of door locks and keyrings to the unfamiliar, abstract realm of public- and private-key encryption.

When concepts don’t match up

Many of the concepts we’re working with are pairs of opposites. Locked or unlocked. Private or public. Trusted or untrusted. Blocked or allowed. Encouraged or discouraged. Good or evil. When those concept pairs appear simultaneously, however, we quickly run into UX problems.

Take the following example. Security is good, right? When something is locked, that means you’re being responsible and careful, and nobody else can access it. It’s protected. That’s cause for celebration. Being locked and protected is a good state.

Whoops.

If the user didn’t mean to lock something, or if the locked state is going to cause them any inconvenience, then extra security is definitely not good news.

Another case in point: Trust is good, right? Something trusted is welcome in people’s lives. It’s allowed to enter, not blocked, and it’s there because people wanted it there. So trusting and allowing something is good.

Nope. Doesn’t work at all. What if we try the opposite colors and iconography?

That’s even worse. Even though we, the designers, were trying both times to keep the user from downloading malware, the user’s actual behavior makes our design completely nonsensical.

Researchers from Google and UC Berkeley identified this problem in a 2016 USENIX paper analyzing connection security indicators. They pointed out that, when somebody clicks through a warning to an “insecure” website, the browser will show a “neutral or positive indicator” in the URL bar – leading them to think that the website is now safe. Unlike our example above, this may not look like nonsense from the user point of view, but from a security standpoint, suddenly showing “safe/good” without any actual change in safety is a pretty dangerous move.

The deeper issue

Now, one could file these phenomena under “mismatching iconography,” but we think there is a deeper issue here that concerns security UI in particular. Security interface design pretty much always has at least a whiff of “right vs. wrong.” How did this moralizing creep into an ostensibly technical realm?

Well, we usually have a pretty good idea what we’d like people to do with regards to security. Generally speaking, we’d like them to be more cautious than they are (at least, so long as we’re not trying to sneak around behind their backs with confusing consent forms and extracurricular data use). Our well-intentioned educational enthusiasm leads us to use little design nudges that foster better security practices, and that makes us reach into the realm of social and psychological signals. But these nudges can easily backfire and turn into total nonsense.

Another example: NoScript

“No UX designer would be dense enough to make these mistakes,” you might be thinking.

Well, we recently did a redesign of the open-source content-blocking browser extension NoScript, and we can tell you from experience: finding the right visual language for pairs of opposites was a struggle.

NoScript is a browser extension that helps you block potential malware from the websites you’re visiting. It needs to communicate a lot of states and actions to users. A single script can be blocked or allowed. A source of scripts can be trusted or untrusted. NoScript is a tool for the truly paranoid, so in general, wants to encourage blocking and not trusting. But:

“An icon with a crossed-out item is usually BAD, and a sign without anything is usually GOOD. But of course, here blocking something is actually GOOD, while blocking nothing is actually BAD. So whichever indicators NoScript chooses, they should either aim to indicate system state [allow/block] or recommendation [good/bad], but not both. And in any case, NoScript should probably stay away from standard colors and icons.”

So we ended up using hardly any of the many common security icons available. No shields, no alert! signs, no locked locks, no unlocked locks. And we completely avoided the red/green palette to keep from taking on unintended meaning.

Navigating the paradox

Security recommendations appear in most digital services are built nowadays. As we move into 2020, we expect to see a lot more conscious choice around colors, icons, and words related to security. For a start, Firefox already made a step in the right direction by streamlining indicators for SSL encryption as well as content blocking. (Spoilers: they avoided adding multiple dimensions of indicators, too!)

The most important thing to keep in mind, as you’re choosing language around security and privacy features, is: don’t conflate social and technical concepts. Trusting your partner is good. Trusting a website? Well, could be good, could be bad. Locking your bike? Good idea. Locking a file? That depends.

Think about the technical facts you’re trying to communicate. Then, and only then, consider if there’s also a behavioral nudge you want to send, and if you are, try to poke holes in your reasoning. Is there ever a case where your nudge could be dangerous? Colors, icons, and words give you a lot of control over how exactly people experience security and privacy features. Using them in a clear and consistent way will help people understand their choices and make more conscious decisions around security.

About the author

Molly Wilson is a designer by training and a teacher at heart: her passion is leveraging human-centered design to help make technology clear and understandable. She has been designing and leading programs in design thinking and innovation processes since 2010, first at the Stanford d.school in Palo Alto, CA and later at the Hasso-Plattner-Institut School of Design Thinking in Potsdam, Germany. Her work as an interaction designer has focused on complex products in finance, health, and education. Outside of work, talk to her about cross-cultural communication, feminism, DIY projects, and visual note-taking.

Molly holds a master’s degree in Learning, Design, and Technology from Stanford University, and a bachelor’s degree magna cum laude in History of Science from Harvard University. See more about her work and projects at http://molly.is.

Eileen Wagner is Simply Secure’s in-house logician. She advises teams and organizations on UX design, supports research and user testing, and produces open resources for the community. Her focus is on information architecture, content strategy, and interaction design. Sometimes she puts on her admin hat and makes sure her team has the required infrastructure to excel.

She previously campaigned for open data and civic tech at the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany. There she helped establish the first public funding program for open source projects in Germany, the Prototype Fund. Her background is in analytic philosophy (BA Cambridge) and mathematical logic (MSc Amsterdam), and she won’t stop talking about barbershop music.

More articles by Molly Wilson & Eileen

Rob Weychert reaches for the top notes to sing us a song of typographic scale. A little attention to scale and to the mathematics will help you to hit a high note with your designs this Christmas and beyond.

I’ve been studying music theory this year. While some of its core concepts were already familiar to me, much of their specifics were not. Or so I thought. A funny thing happened when I was learning the major scales.

While playing through a song I had written some years before, I started picking it apart to see how it correlated with the theory I was learning. I had composed the melody without any thought to what the specific notes were, but as I started to transcribe them, a pattern quickly emerged: all the B’s and E’s were flat and the rest of the notes were natural. Lo and behold, long before my music theory studies began, I had written a song in B♭ major. My ears already knew how the major scales worked even if my brain didn’t. (If you know how “do re mi fa so la ti do” is supposed to sound tonally, then your ears know, too.)

When music is composed to a scale, it sounds “right” to us. And just as our ears appreciate harmony and melody with a rational basis, our eyes can appreciate the same concepts applied to spatial relationships.

Have you ever struggled with sizing type in a design project, especially when you need more than just one or two sizes? Have you ever despaired at the number of ad-hoc type sizes on your site spiraling out of control over time? It could be that you’ve been composing the typographic equivalent of a cacophonous symphony. And the first thing any composer will tell you to do is to get that thing on a scale.

Meet the typographic scale

You don’t need to know music theory to work with a typographic scale. You only need to know that a scale is a range of values with an established mathematic relationship. For a typographic scale, that relationship is frequently a steady interval between type sizes. Depending on what you need your type to do, the interval might be fixed (e.g. each size is two pixels bigger than the size before it) or it might be proportional (e.g. each size is twice as big as the size before it). I personally rarely find fixed intervals useful, so I’ll be focusing on proportional intervals.

The most important thing to understand about proportional intervals is thankfully not complicated: The bigger the intervals are, the more drastic the size differences will be in your scale. If your layout calls for contrast, a bigger interval might be the way to go. If you’re aiming for something more nuanced, go smaller. But keep these things in mind:

• There is such a thing as too much nuance: if a size on your scale is virtually indistinguishable from the sizes adjacent to it, it defeats the purpose of using a scale.
• On the flip side, too much contrast renders the sizes’ proportional relationship moot. At a certain point, massive display type is arguably more graphic than textual.
• More is less. The more sizes you use, the less they’ll mean.

Setting up the scale variables

The quickest way to get a scale up and running when working on the web is to drop its values into some CSS variables. The naming convention I typically use begins with --scale0, which is the body text size. The size below it is --scale-1 (as in “scale minus one”), the size above it is --scale1, and so on. Keeping the names relative to each other like this helps me move around the scale intuitively as I use it. If, say, --scale4 isn’t big enough for my h1, I can move up to --scale5 or --scale6, and I always know exactly how many steps away from the body text I am. Here’s a first pass at a simple set of scale variables using an interval of 1.5:

:root {
  --scale-2: 7.1px;  /* 10.7 ÷ 1.5 */
  --scale-1: 10.7px; /* 16 ÷ 1.5   */
  --scale0: 16px;    /* body text  */
  --scale1: 24px;    /* 16 × 1.5   */
  --scale2: 36px;    /* 24 × 1.5   */
}

I can use these variables with any CSS property that accepts a numeric value, like so:

p { font-size: var(--scale0); }

Rooting around in rems

I’m off to a good start. However, those px values are a little too absolute for my liking. If I convert them to rems, it’ll give my scale more flexibility. rem stands for “root em.” 1rem is equivalent to the html element’s text size, which in most browsers defaults to 16px. Crucially, though, users can adjust that size in their browser settings, and using rems in my CSS will respect those preferences.

:root {
  --scale-2: 0.4rem;  /* 0.7rem ÷ 1.5 */
  --scale-1: 0.7rem;  /* 1rem ÷ 1.5   */
  --scale0: 1rem;     /* body text    */
  --scale1: 1.5rem;   /* 1rem × 1.5   */
  --scale2: 2.25rem;  /* 1.5rem × 1.5 */
}

Another benefit of the relative nature of rems: I tend to use larger text sizes on large viewports and smaller text sizes on small viewports. Rather than adjusting dozens or hundreds of typographic CSS declarations per breakpoint, I can shift the whole scale up or down merely by adjusting the font-size on the html element:

html { font-size: 100%; }     /* 1rem = 16px */

@media screen and (min-width: 25em) {
  html { font-size: 112.5%; } /* 1rem = 18px */
}

Calculating with calc()

My scale is coming along. Its variables’ intuitive names make it easy for me to use, and its rem values respect the user’s browser preferences and allow me to easily shift the size of the entire scale at different viewport sizes. But my setup still isn’t optimized for one very important adjustment: the interval, which is currently 1.5. If 1.5 isn’t quite working for me and I want to see how an increase or decrease will affect the scale, I need to do the math all over again for every step in the scale every time I adjust the interval. The bigger the scale, the more time that will take. It’s time to put down the abacus and get calc() involved.

:root {
  --int: 1.5;
  --scale0: 1rem;
  --scale-1: calc(var(--scale0) / var(--int));
  --scale-2: calc(var(--scale-1) / var(--int));
  --scale1: calc(var(--scale0) * var(--int));
  --scale2: calc(var(--scale1) * var(--int));
}

My interval now has its very own variable, called --int. calc() determines each scale size by multiplying the preceding size by --int. Now that every size is ultimately dependent on --scale0’s value, --scale0 must appear first in the list. Since the sizes smaller than --scale0 are going down rather than up, their values require division rather than multiplication.

Scaling the scale

I can now quickly and easily tweak my scale’s interval by adjusting --int until the proportions are just right, but if I want to add more sizes to the scale, I need to add more variables and calc() values. This isn’t too big of a deal, but if I want to double or triple the number of sizes, it’s kind of a headache. Luckily, this is the sort of thing Sass is really good at. In the following code, adjusting the first four Sass variables at the top of :root will quickly spin up a set of CSS variables like the scale above, with any interval (proportional or fixed) and any number of scale sizes:

:root {
  $interval: 1.5;    // Unitless for proportional, unit for fixed
  $body-text: 1rem;  // Must have a unit
  $scale-min: -2;    // Unitless negative integer
  $scale-max: 2;     // Unitless positive integer

  --int: #{$interval};
  --scale0: #{$body-text};

  @if $scale-min < 0 {
  // Generate scale variables smaller than the base text size
    @for $i from -1 through $scale-min {
      @if type-of($interval) == number {
        @if unitless($interval) {
          --scale#{$i}: calc(var(--scale#{$i + 1}) / var(--int));
        } @else {
          --scale#{$i}: calc(var(--scale#{$i + 1}) - var(--int));
        }
      }
    }
  }
  @if $scale-max > 0 {
    // Generate scale variables larger than the base text size
    @for $i from 1 through $scale-max {
      @if type-of($interval) == number {
        @if unitless($interval) {
          --scale#{$i}: calc(var(--scale#{$i - 1}) * var(--int));
        } @else {
          --scale#{$i}: calc(var(--scale#{$i - 1}) + var(--int));
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Go forth and scale

Typographic scales have been an indispensable part of my work for many years, and CSS variables and calc() make setup, adjustments, and experimentation easier than ever. I hope you find these techniques as useful as I do!

About the author

Rob Weychert is a Brooklyn-based designer. He helps shape the reading experience at ProPublica and has previously helped make books at A Book Apart, games at Harmonix, and websites at Happy Cog. In his free time, he obsesses over music and film. Despite all this, he is probably best known as a competitive air guitarist.

More articles by Rob

Cham, Switzerland : Springer, 2021.

[Place of publication not identified] : Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2022

Akshara attempts to link two of India’s crucial cultural properties — language and crafts — and energise them in unusual ways.

Cambridge, MA. : National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023

The author of Ian Fleming: The Complete Man on Fleming’s legacy and his most famous fictional creation

The art scholar on why the dance form of Theyyam has to be viewed from different angles