New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Clarify Features on Homepage #19
Comments
I totally agree with the breakdown of what is unclear in the above features. While we can better explain the above features, maybe we need a different list, that will be more tailored to potential Dangerzone users (journalists, whistleblowers, privacy-minded individuals). I would recommend the following features, in order of importance:
|
Yes! That's pretty much what I was thinking. And I think your suggested features are spot on. |
From user testing we realized that all the features need some rewording.
No network access - one participant in a user study was confused about the meaning of sandbox. The original text assumes some prior knowledge of what a sandbox is. And two users mentioned that they thought the tool was "uploading" the document We can try to frame it as opening documents on your computer but in a more secure compartment isolated from the internet.
Optional OCR - this one has two potential issues: (1) people may not know what OCR is, to begin with. We should focus instead of saying that the document will be searchable, (which is what one pretends). (2) it may be confusing for some why this is even needed — if the document was originally searchable.
Reduced File Size - Similarly to the "optional OCR", this is written of someone who already knows Qubes Trusted PDF and its limitations, but for someone coming fresh into Dangerzone, the files at the end may look much larger than the original. This can lead to confusion and should be clarified.
Open Docs Safely - we mention here that people can make Dangerzone their default document viewer, but currently, Dangerzone may not be very usable for previewing files as one has to go through the conversion process first.
Notes / Evidence
During user testing, we learned that participants found various parts of the website confusing. On the homepage, the features were not clear and journalists referred a need to quickly understand what the tool is about and if it's for them. The about page has too much information. A participant suggested having an FAQ.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: