Paper detail

The usability canary in the security coal mine: A cognitive framework for evaluation and design of usable authentication solutions

Over the past 15 years, researchers have identified an increasing number of security mechanisms that are so unusable that the intended users either circumvent them or give up on a service rather than suffer the security. With hindsight, the reasons can be identified easily enough: either the security task itself is too cumbersome and/or time-consuming, or it creates high friction with the users` primary task. The aim of the research presented here is to equip designers who select and implement security mechanisms with a method for identifying the ``best fit`` security mechanism at the design stage. Since many usability problems have been identified with authentication, we focus on ``best fit`` authentication, and present a framework that allows security designers not only to model the workload associated with a particular authentication method, but more importantly to model it in the context of the user`s primary task. We draw on results from cognitive psychology to create a method that allows a designer to understand the impact of a particular authentication method on user productivity and satisfaction. In a validation study using a physical mockup of an airline check-in kiosk, we demonstrate that the model can predict user performance and satisfaction. Furthermore, design experts suggested personalized order recommendations which were similar to our model`s predictions. Our model is the first that supports identification of a holistic fit between the task of user authentication and the context in which it is performed. When applied to new systems, we believe it will help designers understand the usability impact of their security choices and thus develop solutions that maximize both.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.