On 27 March 2014 21:24, Trevor Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> - We have two participants speaking fingerprints aloud to each other. >> Do we want them to do it over a cell phone to add difficulty, or just >> omit that bit? > > I think speaking over a phone is a good case to test, because in > person you could also use QR codes, or just look at each other's > screens. A landline might provide more consistent voice quality than > cellphone.
It's true two tests over cellphones may get different voice quality. I tend to think the difference between tests would in this case be okay, because it's a real world factor people ahve to deal with... but I could go either way. > Other: > > * I think a printed biz card may not work well w/high-resolution > visual fingerprints, so maybe doing it on a small phone screen is > better? I actually wasn't planning on doing a printed visual fingerprint... I suppose I could though. I don't think the phone screen would work, because it's not terribly common to have someone's fingerprint on your phone and then try to verify it on your desktop. > * When comparing aloud, I would suggest also having a time limit > designed to provoke a fairly high error rate, so the same methodology > is applied to all modes of use. Otherwise, there's two variables in > the read-aloud case (time, error rate), so not as easy to compare > different formats. Having the tester record "how many times the > participants asks the other to repeat the last token, slow down, or > otherwise change how they're reciting it" seems subjective and > unnecessary. I added in the time limit. I don't think it would be subjective (it seems pretty clear to me that if someone asks for a repeat we record it, if someone asks for them to slow down, we record it, etc). As for as necessity, we could of course not capture that information, but I feel like it's relevant. For example: if we get successful results for English words with no repetitions, but successful results on pseudowords with tons of repetitions - are english words not better? > * Should there be a handwritten test, i.e. one user handwrites the > fingerprint for the other? I don't think it's worth the additional testing... > * Regarding the "computationally chosen flaws" - I think you should > randomize where the error goes, otherwise users will figure out it's > always in the middle/inner chars, and game the test. I want to make sure we test cases of just the middle N being different, but I agree. I put in a 25/7% mix. -tom _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
