The Cryptographic Doom Principle

Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by krazydad on Saturday January 10, 2015 @12:44PM (#8867305)

For the other clueless readers:

MAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_authentication_code

[Please spell out your acronyms the first time, nerds]

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by brownbat on Saturday January 10, 2015 @01:21PM (#8867427)

To be fair, the first use was a link to the wikipedia article, the style just doesn't give you any indication of that.

If I recall, underlining links led to heated debates in some circles, but it's really, really nice to have some visual signal to set off links for readers. If it wasn't obvious why already, this is a great case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by jimmaswell on Saturday January 10, 2015 @09:06PM (#8868756)

Who in their right mind would debate against underlined hyperlinks? Either underlined or blue, and bolded. Keep it at that accepted standard. Such senseless bikeshedding. If your design breaks user expectations then it's almost certainly bad design.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by akjsdfh on Saturday January 10, 2015 @06:03PM (#8868274)

> To be fair, the first use was a link to the wikipedia article, the style just doesn't give you any indication of that.

Huh? it's a different color.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by brownbat on Saturday January 10, 2015 @07:29PM (#8868535)

Huh, yeah, they are two different shades of gray. Completely missed that, so I'm still for more contrast in links. I guess if I'm forced to rate Moxie Marlinspike on presentation, maybe he gets docked a point.

It all feels a bit like rating chef Jonathan Benno on shoelace cleanliness though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Cryptographic Doom Principle by slang800 on Saturday January 10, 2015 @07:34PM (#8868550)

At first glance, I just thought the slightly different shade was for emphasis, rather than indicating a link.

[ Parent | on HN ]