Patterns
- Active Warnings
- Attractive Options
- Complete Delete
- Conveying Threats & Consequences
- Create a Security Lexicon
- Create Keys When Needed
- Delayed Unrecoverable Action
- Detailed Notifications About Security
- Direct Access to UI Components
- Disable by Default
- Disable of Services
- Disclose Significant Deviations
- Distinguish Between Run and Open
- Distinguish Internal Senders
- Distinguish Security Levels
- Email-Based Identification and Authentication
- Explicit Item Delete
- Explicit User Audit
- Failing Safely
- General Notifications About Security
- Immediate Notifications
- Immediate Options
- Indirect Access to UI Components
- Informative Dialogues
- Install Before Execute
- Key Continuity Management
- Levels of Severity
- Leverage Existing Identification
- Localization of Specific Areas
- Migrate and Backup Keys
- Noticeable Contextual Indicators
- Providing Recommendations
- Quick Description of UI Components
- Redundant Notifications
- Reset to Installation
- Restricted Areas Notification
- Security Features Used by the System
- Security Features Used by the User
- Send S/MIME-Signed Email
- Separating Content
- Sequential Access to UI Components
- Suggestive Dialogues
- System’s Security Tasks
- The Absence of Indicators
- Track Received Keys
- Track Recipients
- Warn When Unsafe
Patterns are based on scientific sources.
Usable Security Pattern - Providing Recommendations
Luigi Lo Iacono, Peter Nehren
December 21, 2015
Providing Recommendations
| Name | Providing Recommendations |
| Sources | (Egelman, 2009) |
| Synonyms | None |
| Context | When a danger has been detected, the user should be presented with a clear recommendation on how to safely proceed, as well as a list of other possible actions. |
| Problem | Many warnings fail, not because users did not understand what the dangers were, but because the warnings did not present clear suggestions on how to avoid those dangers. |
| Solution | Warning messages must provide the user with a suggested course of action and instructions on how to pursue that course of action. |
| Examples |  Source: (Egelman, 2009) |
| Implementation | The recommended action should be more prominent than all other options. Thus, if a user elects to disregard the detailed description found in the body text and skip to the options, it will be easy to understand what the recommended action is. The available options should be designed such that it is trivial to distinguish the recommended option from the other available options. |
| Consequences | In many cases, users will read the title of a warning message and then skip to the available options. If no options are available, the user will likely make an uninformed decision (e.g. ignoring the warning because no recommendations have been presented). |
| Dependencies | None |
| Relationships | [Suggestive Dialogues] [Attractive Options] [Noticiable Contextual Indicators] |
| Principles | [Path of Least Resistance] |
| Guidelines | [Warning Design Guidelines (Item 2)] |
| Check lists | None |
| Use cases | None |
| Tags | Providing Recommendations, Suggestive dialogues, Attractive Options, Noticiable Contextual Indicators, Learnability, Fail Safety |
| Log history | [12/21/2015]: Added to repository |
References
Egelman, S., 2009. Trust me: Design patterns for constructing trustworthy trust indicators. ProQuest.