Perimeter
2/8/2012
02:41 PM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

I'm Sorry I Called Your Baby Ugly ... But It Is

Your product's user interface may not be as appealing as you might think -- and it might just be jeopardizing its adoption

I like to use technology that is intuitive, solves a problem, and is a "fit" for me. On the other hand, I also like technology that is aesthetically pleasing. Some vendors have managed to deliver on my requirements, which is why I own several Apple products, buy the same brand of suit, and rarely drink domestic beer. But when it comes to security products -- namely the user interface (UI) of security monitoring products -- I am often disappointed and left wanting.

I speak to numerous vendors across different product sectors on a daily basis, so sometimes my disappointment in their UIs squeaks past my gritted teeth. I do my best to provide constructive criticism based on what I hear from customers, friends, and similar vendors, but the receiving vendor often takes offense. I understand. I called its "baby" ugly. Unlike an ugly baby whose appearance is usually beyond the control of its parents, security UIs can be made better.

Why make a UI more aesthetically pleasing? Well, for one thing, if a user can form a connection with the product, then he'll likely learn it quicker. We, as humans, tend to gravitate toward things we like and distance ourselves from those we don’t. If a provided interface is off-putting, how do you think that might impact the user’s learning curve and subsequent adoption?

Another reason is that many security monitoring products have become indistinguishable. I often say that you could take any SIEM vendor’s product marketing materials, strip any mention of its company or product name, and customers would have an extremely hard time assigning the correct company name to the associated materials. Since security monitoring vendors have done little to differentiate themselves, choosing instead to battle for competitive parity, why not innovate the often touted "single pane of glass?" Perhaps it's time to change the way we force users to interact with products.

I mentioned in my previous blog post -- "Where's My 'Minority Report' Dashboard?" -- that ever since I first saw the movie Minority Report, I’ve been waiting on the edge of my seat for a SIEM vendor to emulate the UI employed by Tom Cruise to solve crimes. I’m not saying that a UI of this nature would make a SIEM product more technologically capable than its closest competitor, but it would almost certainly add a bit of shine and differentiation in a product sector that’s quickly approaching commoditization.

Revamping a UI is not only an expensive undertaking, what with customer requirements gathering, design, development, and testing cycles, but it may also be considered a distraction from a vendor’s technical road map. So how do we balance some "UI bodywork beautification" without drastically impacting other core deliverables? Nearly every security product vendor leverages computer and, sometimes, electrical or mechanical engineering students in a work placement or cooperative education capacity. Not only does this provide inexpensive labor for menial tasks within the organization, but it may also serve to entice the student to come back to the company upon graduation -- providing a semi-trained resource already indoctrinated in the company's culture and processes. What I have yet to see, however, is a company bringing in design students to help overhaul, or even iteratively update, its UI. Sure, you could likely go to Starbucks, throw a rock, and hit five people capable of redesigning your product’s UI, but why not use students who are hungry to prove themselves in the real world? I assure you that the cost savings would likely be dramatic.

A balance between utility and aesthetics can be found, but vendors need to take a step back from their babies and objectively ask the question, “Is my baby ugly?” They also need to ask their customers, partners, friends, family (especially school-aged children), and strangers they meet at airports or in elevators what they might do to improve the UI of their product. They might be surprised to learn that they do, in fact, have an ugly baby.

Andrew Hay is senior analyst with The 451 Group's Enterprise Security Practice and is an author of three network security books. Follow him on Twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewsmhay.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Considering how prevalent third-party attacks are, we need to ask hard questions about how partners and suppliers are safeguarding systems and data.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-4594
Published: 2014-10-25
The Payment for Webform module 7.x-1.x before 7.x-1.5 for Drupal does not restrict access by anonymous users, which allows remote anonymous users to use the payment of other anonymous users when submitting a form that requires payment.

CVE-2014-0476
Published: 2014-10-25
The slapper function in chkrootkit before 0.50 does not properly quote file paths, which allows local users to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse executable. NOTE: this is only a vulnerability when /tmp is not mounted with the noexec option.

CVE-2014-1927
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly quote strings, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "$(" command-substitution sequences, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-1928....

CVE-2014-1928
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly escape characters, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "\" (backslash) characters to form multi-command sequences, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-1929
Published: 2014-10-25
python-gnupg 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via vectors related to "option injection through positional arguments." NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-7323.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.