Rethink how the different relays are named
Current design
Looking at the content on https://support.torproject.org/, we're using very different terminology for the 1st node depending on if it's a public relay ("entry") or if it's a secret or hidden entry ("bridge").
The terminology around relays, especially the 1st relay, is also pretty diverse and used inconsistently:
- Relays in general
- Relay
- Node
- 1st relay
- Entry
- Entry guard
- Entry node
- Entry relay
- Entry point
- Guard
- First node
- 1st relay, if bridge
- Bridge
- Bridge relay
- 2nd relay
- Middle relay
- 3rd relay
- Exit node
- Exit relay
- Exit
User research findings
During the usability test of Tor VPN 0.6.2 (tpo/ux/research#69):
- 3/6 participants thought that all the relays were bridges.
- 6/6 participants tried to change the exit location when configuring a bridge was needed.
- 2/6 participants tried to use a bridge when changing the exit location was needed.
More in general, the network model of Tor was very badly understood. The simpler the language about relays, the easier it will be for users to solve their connectivity problems.
Ideas
I think that 2 main issues with the current "Bridge" terminology are that:
- The term "Bridge" is too generic. Participants in tpo/ux/research#69 didn't understand that this term referred to the 1st intermediary only.
- There is not lexical relationship between "Entry" and "Bridge", despite a "Bridge" being a special type of "Entry".
I wonder how we could make the terminology, especially about the 1st relay, more consistent and simpler.
For example,
- 1st relay: "Entry" or "Entry Relay"
- "Public Entry" or "Public Entry Relay" for regular entries when more precision is needed
- "Hidden Entry" or "Hidden Entry Relay" for bridges when more precision is needed
- 2nd relay: "Middle" or "Middle Relay"
- 3rd relay: "Exit" or "Exit Relay"
That way, if people refer to relays as bridges or nodes or whatever, it doesn't matter. Their role in the network is their name.