After delivering her report to President Obama last Friday, Melissa Hathaway, the Acting Senior Director for Cybersecurity for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils, today gave RSA Conference attendees in San Francisco a glimpse – what she called a “movie trailer” – into the state of U.S cybersecurity.

According to Hathaway’s 60 second trailer, the key to a cyber secure future lies in cooperation between the public and private sector and a united effort on both a hyperlocal front as well as globally.

A Manhattan Project to Defend Cyber Networks

Melissa Hathaway came across our radar recently when President Obama tasked the former Bush administration aide with leading a 60-day review of Bush’s Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative; a largely classified, purported $30 billion, multi phase plan to address cybersecurity issues that Hathaway was involved in developing. The initiative was promptly dubbed ‘a Manhattan Project to defend cyber networks’ by the then Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

The CNCI, which began as a directive from President Bush in January 2008, received much criticism and, in part, led to Obama attacking the Bush administration during his campaign for not efficiently addressing cyber threats. “As president, I’ll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century,” Obama said during a speech in July.

Unfortunately, as pointed out by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal, the decision to hold a 60-day review suggests that any big move in the field of national cybersecurity was once again put off. Or was it?

Who is to Blame for Internet Security Problems?

“Despite all of our efforts,” Hathaway began, “our global digital infrastructure, based largely on the Internet is not secure enough or resilient enough for what we need today and what we need for the future.”

She explained that the original design of the Internet was driven more by considerations of interoperability rather than security, and as a result we are now faced with almost insurmountable issues. Some examples include online criminals who steal our information, mass bandits who have the ability to damage portions of our internal infrastructure, and the recent ATM scam that law enforcement sources claim is one of the most frightening and well coordinated heists they’d ever seen. “In a single 30 minute period,” Hathaway said, “138 ATMs in 49 cities around the world were illicitly emptied of their cash.” This can’t continue she explained, “Our goals depend on trust and that cannot be achieved if people believe they are vulnerable to these types of threats.”

The Trailer for the Path to National CyberSecurity

We need an agreed way to move forward which involves shared responsibility, Hathaway noted, if we are to have “trustworthy, resilient, reliable” cyberspace.

Describing cyberspace and its security as “a fundamental responsibility of our government that transcends the jurisdiction of individual departments and agencies,” Hathaway explained that although each government agency has a unique contribution to make, no single agency can see the overall picture and they’ll need to work together.

Additionally, the private and the public sectors need to join forces as they are “intertwined” when it comes to cybersecurity. “While it is the role of the government to protect its citizens, it is the private sector that in the main designs and owns the majority of the digital infrastructure,” she said.

Finally, Hathaway sees this as a unique opportunity for the United States to work with countries around the world, and with organizations on an extremely local level. “We cannot succeed if our government works in isolation,” she added. It requires “leading from the top” from the White House, to government departments, to the private sector, the C-Suite, and even deeper, to the local classroom and library.

Hathaway said that her report, the culmination of a 60-day comprehensive review to assess U.S. cyberspace policies and structures, will be made public in the next few days after the administration has had a chance to review the data.

https://samplecic.ch/a-60-second-trailer-of-the-60-day-report-on-cybersecurity-116.html

After delivering her report to President Obama last Friday, Melissa Hathaway, the Acting Senior Director for Cybersecurity for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils, today gave RSA Conference attendees in San Francisco a glimpse – what she called a “movie trailer” – into the state of U.S cybersecurity.

According to Hathaway’s 60 second trailer, the key to a cyber secure future lies in cooperation between the public and private sector and a united effort on both a hyperlocal front as well as globally.

A Manhattan Project to Defend Cyber Networks

Melissa Hathaway came across our radar recently when President Obama tasked the former Bush administration aide with leading a 60-day review of Bush’s Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative; a largely classified, purported $30 billion, multi phase plan to address cybersecurity issues that Hathaway was involved in developing. The initiative was promptly dubbed ‘a Manhattan Project to defend cyber networks’ by the then Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

The CNCI, which began as a directive from President Bush in January 2008, received much criticism and, in part, led to Obama attacking the Bush administration during his campaign for not efficiently addressing cyber threats. “As president, I’ll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century,” Obama said during a speech in July.

Unfortunately, as pointed out by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal, the decision to hold a 60-day review suggests that any big move in the field of national cybersecurity was once again put off. Or was it?

Who is to Blame for Internet Security Problems?

“Despite all of our efforts,” Hathaway began, “our global digital infrastructure, based largely on the Internet is not secure enough or resilient enough for what we need today and what we need for the future.”

She explained that the original design of the Internet was driven more by considerations of interoperability rather than security, and as a result we are now faced with almost insurmountable issues. Some examples include online criminals who steal our information, mass bandits who have the ability to damage portions of our internal infrastructure, and the recent ATM scam that law enforcement sources claim is one of the most frightening and well coordinated heists they’d ever seen. “In a single 30 minute period,” Hathaway said, “138 ATMs in 49 cities around the world were illicitly emptied of their cash.” This can’t continue she explained, “Our goals depend on trust and that cannot be achieved if people believe they are vulnerable to these types of threats.”

The Trailer for the Path to National CyberSecurity

We need an agreed way to move forward which involves shared responsibility, Hathaway noted, if we are to have “trustworthy, resilient, reliable” cyberspace.

Describing cyberspace and its security as “a fundamental responsibility of our government that transcends the jurisdiction of individual departments and agencies,” Hathaway explained that although each government agency has a unique contribution to make, no single agency can see the overall picture and they’ll need to work together.

Additionally, the private and the public sectors need to join forces as they are “intertwined” when it comes to cybersecurity. “While it is the role of the government to protect its citizens, it is the private sector that in the main designs and owns the majority of the digital infrastructure,” she said.

Finally, Hathaway sees this as a unique opportunity for the United States to work with countries around the world, and with organizations on an extremely local level. “We cannot succeed if our government works in isolation,” she added. It requires “leading from the top” from the White House, to government departments, to the private sector, the C-Suite, and even deeper, to the local classroom and library.

Hathaway said that her report, the culmination of a 60-day comprehensive review to assess U.S. cyberspace policies and structures, will be made public in the next few days after the administration has had a chance to review the data.

https://samplecic.ch/a-60-second-trailer-of-the-60-day-report-on-cybersecurity-115.html

After delivering her report to President Obama last Friday, Melissa Hathaway, the Acting Senior Director for Cybersecurity for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils, today gave RSA Conference attendees in San Francisco a glimpse – what she called a “movie trailer” – into the state of U.S cybersecurity.

According to Hathaway’s 60 second trailer, the key to a cyber secure future lies in cooperation between the public and private sector and a united effort on both a hyperlocal front as well as globally.

A Manhattan Project to Defend Cyber Networks

Melissa Hathaway came across our radar recently when President Obama tasked the former Bush administration aide with leading a 60-day review of Bush’s Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative; a largely classified, purported $30 billion, multi phase plan to address cybersecurity issues that Hathaway was involved in developing. The initiative was promptly dubbed ‘a Manhattan Project to defend cyber networks’ by the then Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

The CNCI, which began as a directive from President Bush in January 2008, received much criticism and, in part, led to Obama attacking the Bush administration during his campaign for not efficiently addressing cyber threats. “As president, I’ll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century,” Obama said during a speech in July.

Unfortunately, as pointed out by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal, the decision to hold a 60-day review suggests that any big move in the field of national cybersecurity was once again put off. Or was it?

Who is to Blame for Internet Security Problems?

“Despite all of our efforts,” Hathaway began, “our global digital infrastructure, based largely on the Internet is not secure enough or resilient enough for what we need today and what we need for the future.”

She explained that the original design of the Internet was driven more by considerations of interoperability rather than security, and as a result we are now faced with almost insurmountable issues. Some examples include online criminals who steal our information, mass bandits who have the ability to damage portions of our internal infrastructure, and the recent ATM scam that law enforcement sources claim is one of the most frightening and well coordinated heists they’d ever seen. “In a single 30 minute period,” Hathaway said, “138 ATMs in 49 cities around the world were illicitly emptied of their cash.” This can’t continue she explained, “Our goals depend on trust and that cannot be achieved if people believe they are vulnerable to these types of threats.”

The Trailer for the Path to National CyberSecurity

We need an agreed way to move forward which involves shared responsibility, Hathaway noted, if we are to have “trustworthy, resilient, reliable” cyberspace.

Describing cyberspace and its security as “a fundamental responsibility of our government that transcends the jurisdiction of individual departments and agencies,” Hathaway explained that although each government agency has a unique contribution to make, no single agency can see the overall picture and they’ll need to work together.

Additionally, the private and the public sectors need to join forces as they are “intertwined” when it comes to cybersecurity. “While it is the role of the government to protect its citizens, it is the private sector that in the main designs and owns the majority of the digital infrastructure,” she said.

Finally, Hathaway sees this as a unique opportunity for the United States to work with countries around the world, and with organizations on an extremely local level. “We cannot succeed if our government works in isolation,” she added. It requires “leading from the top” from the White House, to government departments, to the private sector, the C-Suite, and even deeper, to the local classroom and library.

Hathaway said that her report, the culmination of a 60-day comprehensive review to assess U.S. cyberspace policies and structures, will be made public in the next few days after the administration has had a chance to review the data.

https://samplecic.ch/a-60-second-trailer-of-the-60-day-report-on-cybersecurity-114.html

After delivering her report to President Obama last Friday, Melissa Hathaway, the Acting Senior Director for Cybersecurity for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils, today gave RSA Conference attendees in San Francisco a glimpse – what she called a “movie trailer” – into the state of U.S cybersecurity.

According to Hathaway’s 60 second trailer, the key to a cyber secure future lies in cooperation between the public and private sector and a united effort on both a hyperlocal front as well as globally.

A Manhattan Project to Defend Cyber Networks

Melissa Hathaway came across our radar recently when President Obama tasked the former Bush administration aide with leading a 60-day review of Bush’s Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative; a largely classified, purported $30 billion, multi phase plan to address cybersecurity issues that Hathaway was involved in developing. The initiative was promptly dubbed ‘a Manhattan Project to defend cyber networks’ by the then Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

The CNCI, which began as a directive from President Bush in January 2008, received much criticism and, in part, led to Obama attacking the Bush administration during his campaign for not efficiently addressing cyber threats. “As president, I’ll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century,” Obama said during a speech in July.

Unfortunately, as pointed out by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal, the decision to hold a 60-day review suggests that any big move in the field of national cybersecurity was once again put off. Or was it?

Who is to Blame for Internet Security Problems?

“Despite all of our efforts,” Hathaway began, “our global digital infrastructure, based largely on the Internet is not secure enough or resilient enough for what we need today and what we need for the future.”

She explained that the original design of the Internet was driven more by considerations of interoperability rather than security, and as a result we are now faced with almost insurmountable issues. Some examples include online criminals who steal our information, mass bandits who have the ability to damage portions of our internal infrastructure, and the recent ATM scam that law enforcement sources claim is one of the most frightening and well coordinated heists they’d ever seen. “In a single 30 minute period,” Hathaway said, “138 ATMs in 49 cities around the world were illicitly emptied of their cash.” This can’t continue she explained, “Our goals depend on trust and that cannot be achieved if people believe they are vulnerable to these types of threats.”

The Trailer for the Path to National CyberSecurity

We need an agreed way to move forward which involves shared responsibility, Hathaway noted, if we are to have “trustworthy, resilient, reliable” cyberspace.

Describing cyberspace and its security as “a fundamental responsibility of our government that transcends the jurisdiction of individual departments and agencies,” Hathaway explained that although each government agency has a unique contribution to make, no single agency can see the overall picture and they’ll need to work together.

Additionally, the private and the public sectors need to join forces as they are “intertwined” when it comes to cybersecurity. “While it is the role of the government to protect its citizens, it is the private sector that in the main designs and owns the majority of the digital infrastructure,” she said.

Finally, Hathaway sees this as a unique opportunity for the United States to work with countries around the world, and with organizations on an extremely local level. “We cannot succeed if our government works in isolation,” she added. It requires “leading from the top” from the White House, to government departments, to the private sector, the C-Suite, and even deeper, to the local classroom and library.

Hathaway said that her report, the culmination of a 60-day comprehensive review to assess U.S. cyberspace policies and structures, will be made public in the next few days after the administration has had a chance to review the data.

https://samplecic.ch/a-60-second-trailer-of-the-60-day-report-on-cybersecurity-113.html

After delivering her report to President Obama last Friday, Melissa Hathaway, the Acting Senior Director for Cybersecurity for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils, today gave RSA Conference attendees in San Francisco a glimpse – what she called a “movie trailer” – into the state of U.S cybersecurity.

According to Hathaway’s 60 second trailer, the key to a cyber secure future lies in cooperation between the public and private sector and a united effort on both a hyperlocal front as well as globally.

A Manhattan Project to Defend Cyber Networks

Melissa Hathaway came across our radar recently when President Obama tasked the former Bush administration aide with leading a 60-day review of Bush’s Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative; a largely classified, purported $30 billion, multi phase plan to address cybersecurity issues that Hathaway was involved in developing. The initiative was promptly dubbed ‘a Manhattan Project to defend cyber networks’ by the then Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

The CNCI, which began as a directive from President Bush in January 2008, received much criticism and, in part, led to Obama attacking the Bush administration during his campaign for not efficiently addressing cyber threats. “As president, I’ll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century,” Obama said during a speech in July.

Unfortunately, as pointed out by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal, the decision to hold a 60-day review suggests that any big move in the field of national cybersecurity was once again put off. Or was it?

Who is to Blame for Internet Security Problems?

“Despite all of our efforts,” Hathaway began, “our global digital infrastructure, based largely on the Internet is not secure enough or resilient enough for what we need today and what we need for the future.”

She explained that the original design of the Internet was driven more by considerations of interoperability rather than security, and as a result we are now faced with almost insurmountable issues. Some examples include online criminals who steal our information, mass bandits who have the ability to damage portions of our internal infrastructure, and the recent ATM scam that law enforcement sources claim is one of the most frightening and well coordinated heists they’d ever seen. “In a single 30 minute period,” Hathaway said, “138 ATMs in 49 cities around the world were illicitly emptied of their cash.” This can’t continue she explained, “Our goals depend on trust and that cannot be achieved if people believe they are vulnerable to these types of threats.”

The Trailer for the Path to National CyberSecurity

We need an agreed way to move forward which involves shared responsibility, Hathaway noted, if we are to have “trustworthy, resilient, reliable” cyberspace.

Describing cyberspace and its security as “a fundamental responsibility of our government that transcends the jurisdiction of individual departments and agencies,” Hathaway explained that although each government agency has a unique contribution to make, no single agency can see the overall picture and they’ll need to work together.

Additionally, the private and the public sectors need to join forces as they are “intertwined” when it comes to cybersecurity. “While it is the role of the government to protect its citizens, it is the private sector that in the main designs and owns the majority of the digital infrastructure,” she said.

Finally, Hathaway sees this as a unique opportunity for the United States to work with countries around the world, and with organizations on an extremely local level. “We cannot succeed if our government works in isolation,” she added. It requires “leading from the top” from the White House, to government departments, to the private sector, the C-Suite, and even deeper, to the local classroom and library.

Hathaway said that her report, the culmination of a 60-day comprehensive review to assess U.S. cyberspace policies and structures, will be made public in the next few days after the administration has had a chance to review the data.

https://samplecic.ch/a-60-second-trailer-of-the-60-day-report-on-cybersecurity-112.html

Long ago, the symbol X meant “this is where the treasure is buried.” In today’s digital interfaces, X no longer marks the spot, but rather functions as a way for users to cancel a process or to dismiss an interim screen. How can one tell for sure whether the X means cancel or close? Sometimes, unfortunately, you can’t.

The main issue lies with the common lack of a text label for the X icon. When an icon represents multiple meanings in similar contexts across different interfaces, icon usability suffers because users cannot rely on any single interpretation.

Avoid Losing Users’ Work

When users intend to dismiss a modal or view by clicking the X button, but the system instead completely cancels the process and clears all their work, it is disheartening at best, and maddening at worst. Yes, the X icon is commonly recognized by users to mean either to cancel or to close, but distinguishing between the two possibilities is critical for the success of the interaction.

In some cases, the distinction between cancel and close doesn’t matter. When a popup takes over the majority of your screen, hitting the X button (as quickly as humanly possible) serves to both close that modal and perhaps cancel any process it might have triggered. However, if a screen contains a running timer, is playing audio, holds several selected filter options, or contains some other type of unsaved work, it becomes much more important to correctly interpret what that X icon represents — you may intend to leave that timer or audio running, apply those selected filters, or save your in-progress work, while wanting to close that view to continue some other related activity.

For example, the Sephora checkout process used a modal window to present free samples that users could add to their cart. In the following example, an item had just been selected by clicking the Add button below it; that action caused the Add button to be replaced by a Remove link, which made it look as if the sample had already been added to the cart. However, when the user closed the modal by clicking the X icon rather than Done link, she discovered that the item was not in the cart and that she needed to add it again.

Sephora: Even though it looked as if the sample had already been added to the cart because it could now be removed, closing the modal (by clicking the X in the top right corner) canceled the process of choosing a trial item. To add the item to their carts, users had to first click Add and then apply that action by clicking the Done link.

To avoid losing users’ work, systems need to determine the user’s intent — cancel or close — and provide clear options.

This goal can be accomplished by one or more of the following:

• Asking the user to confirm their intention
• Using explicit text labels rather than ambiguous icons
• Presenting two distinct buttons: X for closing the view (with the side effect of saving intermediate work) and Cancel for abandoning the process

1. Ask for Confirmation

If a user pressed the X icon on a modal or intermediate view where she had already performed an action, the UI could confirm her intention by directly asking whether to apply that action before closing the view. This solution is ideal for destructive cancel actions that would lose the user’s work. Here, the old adage that it’s better to beg forgiveness than ask for permission is absolutely not true — always ask for confirmation before committing destructive actions.

For example, filter views are often accidentally closed, and that action causes users to lose their work. This problem is particularly rampant on mobile interfaces, as filter screens often consume the majority — if not all — of the available screen space, making it difficult or impossible to tell whether selections have already been applied.

To guard against potential mistakes, ask users who close a filter view whether they intend to apply the filters and close the view or clear their selections. For instance, the Lowes mobile app showed a confirmation dialog when the user attempted to close the filter screen before applying her selections.

Lowes mobile app: Tapping either the X button or the Back arrow could reset any selections and take the user back to the previous result set. Right: After tapping X, a confirmation dialog appeared to check whether the user meant to apply or cancel the filter refinements before returning to the results list.

Similarly, the language-learning app Duolingo showed a confirmation dialog when users attempted to close an in-progress lesson — lessons could not be left partially completed and had to be either finished or cancelled. At least, the app communicated this constraint to users and gave them the option to return to the lesson to maintain progress.

Duolingo: Clicking the X button would end the current lesson and forfeit any progress. To guard against mistakes, the app included a confirmation dialog.

While confirmation dialogs are effective in disambiguating the meaning of the X icon, they add extra steps; moreover, users don’t know what the X does before they press it and, therefore, they may worry about the consequence of their action.

2. Use Explicit Labels

Rather than relying on confirmation dialogs to catch users before they unwittingly lose all their selections, you can eliminate the ambiguous X icon in favor of explicit text-labeled buttons. Text can reduce ambiguity and clearly communicate what action would occur: cancel versus close.

The filter screen of Yelp’s mobile app offered buttons labeled Cancel and Reset at the top of the screen and a single large Apply button at the bottom. Similarly, the filter view in the Etsy mobile app provided separate buttons labeled Clear and Done. (Note: Etsy used Done rather than Apply because the filters were applied as soon as they had been selected, as is recommended for toggle switches.)

(Left) Yelp mobile app: Text labels for Cancel, Reset, and Apply were direct and clear, making it less likely that users would inadvertently close the view and lose their filter selections. (Right) Etsy mobile app: The text label Clear gave a clear way (pardon the pun) for users to cancel their selections. The Done link returned to the product-listings page, with the selections already applied. 3. Favor Close & Save

If the X icon must be used rather than text (to save space or because you’re following your organization’s style guide), err on the side of caution and save any intermediate work that has been done. In addition, provide a separate Cancel button, to give users an emergency exit out of the process and to disambiguate between the two possible meanings of the X (closing and cancelling).

For example, Gmail automatically saved a draft of a message composed in its nonmodal window. This practice allowed users to collapse or close the window when desired, while still saving their progress. Hovering over the X icon in the top right corner of the message window displayed a tooltip confirming that the draft was going to be saved and closed. Cancelling was also still available (using the Delete trash can icon at the bottom of the message window — far from the Save & close option at the top to help prevent mistakes).

Gmail: Hover revealed that the X icon was for dismissing the window and not for deleting the draft, allowing users to Save & close the message window without losing work in progress.

Saving by default can also be a good solution for long processes or processes that tend to be run in the background, such as timers. For instance, the Glow Baby mobile app allowed users to browse other areas of the app while a feeding or sleeping timer ran in the background. Because these timers can run for a long period of time (hopefully, a very long time for the sleeping timer!), this functionality let the user accomplish other tasks in the app, like recording a past diaper change or browsing through articles and forums. Tapping the X icon in the timer view simply dismissed the window without canceling the running timer.

Glow Baby: (Left) Tapping the X icon in a running-timer view dismissed the view without canceling the timer, and thus, allowed the user to continue using the app to log other types of events, participate in the community discussions, read articles, and so on. (Middle) The status for the running timer was displayed in a banner at the top of the screen. (Right) Hitting the X while the timer was paused brought up the Discard or Cancel buttons to detect the user’s intention.

Note that saving intermediate work or maintaining an ongoing process before closing is proactive, but sometimes can be contrary to the user’s intention: If users intend to cancel their selections by clicking the X button, auto applying those selections could be confusing and frustrating. This is why it’s critical to also include a separate Cancel button, to give users an out rather than forcing them to only save and close the view.

Conclusion

While the X icon is ambiguous and can often cause usability problems, it’s unlikely that it will disappear from all interfaces any time soon. Designers should be aware of the multiple meanings of the X icon and disambiguate between close and cancel, as well as provide safeguards such as confirmation dialogs or autosaving to avoid losing any users’ work.

Remember, when in doubt, save, then out.

https://samplecic.ch/cancel-vs-close-design-to-distinguish-the-difference-2.html