[UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in Domain

[Jothan Frakes]

I think emoji is fascinating and potentially interesting to watch, and am
not suggesting that emoji, once a bit more settled and standardized by
those respective groups, may drift into our orbit.

Rather, I am suggesting that we not allow it to distract us while working
the existing issues.


On May 31, 2017 09:51, "Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss" <ua-discuss at icann.org>
wrote:

> Your explanation makes sense to me.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Andre Schappo
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:49 AM
> To: ua-discuss at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] SAC095 - SSAC Advisory on the Use of Emoji in
> Domain
>
>
> > On 31 May 2017, at 16:59, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:49:21PM +0000, Andre Schappo wrote:
> >> My standard practice is to make, whenever possible, my links WYSIWYG. I
> think it a good practice. Sometimes it is not possible because of overly
> long and complex URLs.
> >>
> >
> > It's never actually been a recommendation from hypertext people,
> > however.  They've always suggested that you should put links liberally
> > in running text that is in itself nicely readable.  So,
> >
> >    <a href="target">In a previous post</a>, we discussed UA…
> >
> > as opposed to
> >
> >    In a previous post, which you can find at <a
> >    href="target">target</a>, we discussed UA …
> >
> > Why do you think it's a good practice?  It makes for very stilted
> > text.
> >
> > A
> >
>
> User reassurance - knowing the exact address of the website they will
> visit if they click the link.
> Transparency - stating clearly and exactly the address of the website they
> will visit if they click the link.
> User feedback - Users can visually verify that the address of the website
> they land on after clicking the link is indeed what was stated.
>
> I consider it makes for better security because the address is upfront for
> visual inspection/examination and not hidden behind some text string/image.
>
> There is much discussion/arguments on IDNs and phishing/spoofing because
> of, for instance, confusables.
>
> I consider spoofing/phishing is more easily achieved with links hiding
> behind text/images without going to the effort of employing and registering
> IDNs containing confusables.
>
> eg <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%
> 2FWeWillStealYourMoney.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%
> 7C579786462f804689d6ed08d4a845192e%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7C1%7C0%7C636318462118900393&sdata=I3WPZk7CBmK5Jldlr4VCaqySuyk80n
> HfjEidaFOYajw%3D&reserved=0">the honest and genuine bank<a>
>
> I too used to hide links behind text/images but for about 4/5 years now I
> have been making links explicit as I consider it better security and better
> practice. One way in which I retain reading flow is to treat the link as a
> full stop ie terminating a sentence. Also, one can use links in a similar
> manner to the way citations are used in academic papers
>
> André Schappo
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20170531/78151d87/attachment.html>