User Tools
emfaseinternal
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
emfaseinternal [2014/07/11 12:12] fabio.massacci@unitn.it [EMFASE conference call 11 July 2014] |
emfaseinternal [2021/01/29 10:58] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== EMFASE Internal Activities ====== | ====== EMFASE Internal Activities ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | This wiki page describes the main decision points of the EMFASE project. | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| ===== EMFASE conference call 11 July 2014 ===== | ===== EMFASE conference call 11 July 2014 ===== | ||
| - | Participants | + | Emfase conf call – 07/11/2014 |
| + | Participants: | ||
| + | UNITN: FP, MDG, FM | ||
| + | SINTEF: BS, KS | ||
| + | DBL: MR | ||
| - | UNITN: FM, FP, MDG | + | Points to be discussed: |
| - | SINTEF: KS,BS | + | - Discussion for comprehension questionnaire |
| - | DEEP BLUE: MR | + | - Proposal of DBL |
| + | - Contribution to D2.1 | ||
| - | Points Discussed | + | === Comprehension questionnaire === |
| - | - Hypothesis to be tested | ||
| - | - Sub Hypotheses | ||
| - | - Comprehension questionnaire | ||
| - | - Etnographic study | ||
| - | Some interesting article for the experiments | + | Main hypothesis: |
| + | * There is no difference between the comprehension levels of graphical and textual risk models | ||
| + | Sub-hypothesis: | ||
| + | * Visual graphs are better than tables for understanding how separate paths/rows are related | ||
| + | * Visual graphs are better than tables for calculation and consistency checking | ||
| + | * Tables are better than visual graphs filtering out specific information | ||
| + | Discussion about the definition of graphical model | ||
| + | * Nodes and edges definition is not exhaustive; a working definition which specifies which are the elements of the graphical models is needed. We need to understand which are the features of the graphic model, in order to identify if these features work or not. | ||
| + | * The scenario identified in Oslo was Poste Italiane Home Banking. | ||
| + | === Direct observation=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * MR explains how they defined criteria (according to MEM), sub-categories (according to success criteria), categories (as defined in Oslo) and indicators (defined by DBL)that can be measured and direct observed. | ||
| + | * A brief description of the experimental protocol is needed: how are you going to do the direct observation? How are you going to measure what you are observing? Consider that only partial observability will be available, how are you going to solve this problem? | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Actions list === | ||
| + | |||
| + | * FP: share paper about comprehensibility by 1th July | ||
| + | * UNITN, SINTEF: provide semi-final Comprehension Questionnaire by 8th August | ||
| + | * DBL: provide a short description on the added-value for the project and for the participants and the protocol for the observation by End of July | ||
| + | * UNITN: provide 1 page with protocol for Section 4 of D2.1 | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Some interesting article for the experiments {{:research_activities:experiments:articles.zip|Zip files}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| ===== 24-25 June 2014 ===== | ===== 24-25 June 2014 ===== | ||
| Line 89: | Line 116: | ||
| Oct 2014 – Jan 2015 - Interviews with Security Experts (Raminder Ruprai - NGRID, Ivonne Herrera – SINTEF, Birgit Goelz – DFS, Lorenzo Falciani – PwC, Gianluca Gargiulo - NAIS Solutions, etc.) | Oct 2014 – Jan 2015 - Interviews with Security Experts (Raminder Ruprai - NGRID, Ivonne Herrera – SINTEF, Birgit Goelz – DFS, Lorenzo Falciani – PwC, Gianluca Gargiulo - NAIS Solutions, etc.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| ===== 14/March/2014 ===== | ===== 14/March/2014 ===== | ||
| Line 203: | Line 232: | ||
| Deadline end of April. | Deadline end of April. | ||
| - | |||
emfaseinternal.1405073572.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/01/29 10:58 (external edit)
Page Tools
