Evaluating the End-User Experience of Private Browsing Mode

Nowadays, all major web browsers have a private browsing mode. However, the mode's benefits and limitations are not particularly understood. Through the use of survey studies, prior work has found that most users are either unaware of private browsing or do not use it. Further, those who do use private browsing generally have misconceptions about what protection it provides. However, prior work has not investigated \emph{why} users misunderstand the benefits and limitations of private browsing. In this work, we do so by designing and conducting a three-part study: (1) an analytical approach combining cognitive walkthrough and heuristic evaluation to inspect the user interface of private mode in different browsers; (2) a qualitative, interview-based study to explore users' mental models of private browsing and its security goals; (3) a participatory design study to investigate why existing browser disclosures, the in-browser explanations of private browsing mode, do not communicate the security goals of private browsing to users. Participants critiqued the browser disclosures of three web browsers: Brave, Firefox, and Google Chrome, and then designed new ones. We find that the user interface of private mode in different web browsers violates several well-established design guidelines and heuristics. Further, most participants had incorrect mental models of private browsing, influencing their understanding and usage of private mode. Additionally, we find that existing browser disclosures are not only vague, but also misleading. None of the three studied browser disclosures communicates or explains the primary security goal of private browsing. Drawing from the results of our user study, we extract a set of design recommendations that we encourage browser designers to validate, in order to design more effective and informative browser disclosures related to private mode

Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals

During 2015–2016, record temperatures triggered a pan-tropical episode of coral bleaching, the third global-scale event since mass bleaching was first documented in the 1980s. Here we examine how and why the severity of recurrent major bleaching events has varied at multiple scales, using aerial and underwater surveys of Australian reefs combined with satellite-derived sea surface temperatures. The distinctive geographic footprints of recurrent bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 1998, 2002 and 2016 were determined by the spatial pattern of sea temperatures in each year. Water quality and fishing pressure had minimal effect on the unprecedented bleaching in 2016, suggesting that local protection of reefs affords little or no resistance to extreme heat. Similarly, past exposure to bleaching in 1998 and 2002 did not lessen the severity of bleaching in 2016. Consequently, immediate global action to curb future warming is essential to secure a future for coral reefs

Non-invasive Transcutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Programming Recommendations for the Treatment of Upper Extremity Impairment in Tetraplegia

This study analyzes the stimulation parameters implemented during two successful trials that used non-invasive transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) to effectively improve upper extremity function after chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). It proposes a framework to guide stimulation programming decisions for the successful translation of these techniques into the clinic. Programming data from 60 participants who completed the Up-LIFT trial and from 17 participants who subsequently completed the LIFT Home trial were analyzed. All observations of stimulation amplitudes, frequencies, waveforms, and electrode configurations were examined. The incidence of adverse events and relatedness to stimulation parameters is reported. A comparison of parameter usage across the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) subgroups was conducted to evaluate stimulation strategies across participants with varying degrees of sensorimotor preservation. Active (cathodal) electrodes were typically placed between the C3/C4 and C6/C7 spinous processes. Most sessions featured return (anodal) electrodes positioned bilaterally over the anterior superior iliac spine, although clavicular placement was frequently used by 12 participants. Stimulation was delivered with a 10-kHz carrier frequency and typically a 30-Hz burst frequency. Biphasic waveforms were used in 83% of sessions. Average stimulation amplitudes were higher for biphasic waveforms. The AIS B subgroup required significantly higher amplitudes than did the AIS C and D subgroups. Device-related adverse events were infrequent, and not correlated with specific waveforms or amplitudes. Within the home setting, participants maintained their current amplitudes within 1% of the preset values. The suggested stimulation programming framework dictates the following hierarchical order of parameter adjustments: current amplitude, waveform type, active/return electrode positioning, and burst frequency, guided by clinical observations as required. This analysis summarizes effective stimulation parameters from the trials and provides a decision-making framework for clinical implementation of tSCS for upper extremity functional restoration after SCI. The parameters are aligned with existing literature and proved safe and well tolerated by participants