In creating Taco’s Chrome extension, I became familiar with Chrome’s permission system. An extension defines the information it accesses, like request history, and Chrome shows permission-specific descriptions to end users when they try to install it.
I recently added the topSites permission to Taco’s extension, which grants very limited access: the URLs and page titles of the 20 most frequently visited sites. It’s the information shown on Chrome’s new tab page.
When I added this permission, here’s what Chrome presented to users (as reported by a justifiably surprised user):
“Read your browsing history” isn’t an accurate description of the access Taco has, especially when a different permission level (“history”) exists which does grant exactly that. I’m sure that led some users to uninstall the extension instead of upgrading and granting this permission, so I wanted to solve the problem for other users like this person and for other extension authors.
I found this Chromium issue about improving permission descriptions and posted a request and a followup justification, both duplicated below. The justification led to Chromium issue 404334 to change the description to something clearer, like “Read a list of the 20 sites you most frequently visit.”
Comment #1 (original)
Our users encountered this problem. Namely, as
topSites permission causes users to see the same user-facing
description as the
history permission, even though it has far, far
Both permissions say it’s possible to “Read and modify your browsing history.” While that’s accurate for the history permission, for topSites, it should say something like “Read the 20 most frequently visited URLs” or “Read most frequently visited URLs.”
(If one wanted to be really user-friendly, I could see checking for
chrome_url_overrides and adjusting the message for that,
like “Read most frequently visited URLs (such as for new tab pages)” or
linking to a page which says same.)
Anyway, end result is that right now, end users can’t tell the difference between two permissions which should involve very different amounts of trust.
Comment #2 (original)
Thanks for the fast reply and thoughtful comments, Mustafa. I totally agree that none of these is universally perfect. I do think there’s 3 challenges with the current (new) topSites description:
When interpreted by almost any user, it’s inaccurate. No user thinks of “browsing history” as “the most frequently accessed sites,” let alone “the sites on my new tab page.” It uses a phrase (“browsing history”) which, while obviously not intentionally wrong, doesn’t mean what it’s intended to.
Here’s an example I encountered today: tweet. Nobody thinks “browsing history” means “URLs of top 20 sites.” This manifests in lower user satisfaction because users decline to use extensions they’d actually be comfortable with.
Users can’t differentiate between 2 very different permission levels. By conflating two very different amounts of access (
history) into the same single message, a user isn’t told the difference. Many, maybe a majority of, users who would be uncomfortable granting history would be completely comfortable granting topSites.
In as much as the goal of the permissions system is to let users make informed decisions, two very different amounts of access should be described differently. (The corollary of this argument: if they aren’t different enough to justify different descriptions, we might as well obsolete topSites and exclusively use history. I don’t think that at all, though!).
It deters extensions from using topSites, or would if extension authors knew about this problem ahead of time. I just released an update to a new tab page which started using
topSites(tweet). If I’d known 24 hours ago what I know now about the permission wording, I would not have added topSites support to our extension. Because it’s so generic, the user message is scarier than the feature justifies.