Guiding users to revocation

[simon-friedberger]

Regret: Given the challenges of permission annoyance and abuse, it is reasonable for user agents to suppress a site's future requests for the same capability when the first request is blocked. That said, our research shows that users can and do change their minds for good reasons. When they change their mind, the site can no longer offer an interface in web content and the user must search for the appropriate user agent surface. Our research shows that users often fail when trying to do so (see example 3).

It seems this problem will get worse for users who would like to revoke a permission. They will be even less likely to be aware of any user agent UI for managing permissions and sites often don't have any incentive to do so.
Even the examples are biased in this sense:


Shouldn't the second button be called "Unshare Location" or show a checked checkbox so users are aware that they can also remove the permissions here?

[andypaicu]

I don't personally think it's that obvious that the second button should be "Unshare location", while the phrasing does better inform the user that an action can be taken, the current wording brings attention the fact that their location (or camera or microphone etc) is currently being shared and might be more immediately alarming wording for users that do not expect this to be the case, so I think there are benefits and drawbacks when it comes specifically to the wording.

In terms of revoking granted permissions, I think it's a correct observation that the explainer is mostly focused on the "permanently denied" state, mostly due to practicality: sites want to get users out of this state, some users want to get out of this state and don't know how. I think the reverse is more difficult for a proposal like this to address, but there are things that user agents can do when presenting the initial permission prompt to less users know where the decision can be revoked. However that is outside the scope of this proposal but might be worth at least mentioning as a risk that user agents should be aware.

[simon-friedberger]

I'm not really disagreeing on the button, buttons that are labeled "enable" and then switch to "disable" are confusing especially when it's not spelled out but using an icon, like a microphone and a crossed-out-microphone because the user never knows if it displays the current state or the state they get by pressing the button.

But the general "let's make it easier for the user to agree but not easier to disagree" is concerning. It should be in-scope for this proposal.