Key Backup section in User Settings is very confusing

[richvdh]

Current UI:

Problems:

• It implies that this is only needed "in case you lose access to your sessions". This is incorrect; it is needed so that you can get access to the messages on any new device.
• I'm not sure what "Your keys will be secured with a unique Security Key" means. What is this "security key"? Perhaps its talking about the 4S "recovery key" (cf UX: is it a Security Key or a Recovery Key element-meta#2394)? But it's a funny way to say that.
• The buttons make no sense at all:
  • "Restore from backup" wedges your entire UI (Restore keys (from secure online backup) in background rather than foreground #20694). It doesn't seem like a useful operation anyway.
  • What is the point of the "Reset" button? (I think it's meant to just reset the backup, but also ends up resetting 4S, and makes a mess of it).
  • The "Delete" button only deletes the most recent key backup. Its behaviour is very confusing
• The UI does not make clear whether the backup is signed with a trusted key. On the contrary, it says: "This session is not backing up your keys, but you do have an existing backup you can restore from and add to going forward." Which is incorrect.
• In the "Advanced" section:
  
  • What are the possible values for each of the first four entries? What do they mean? This seems like a rubbish way to present this data.
  • Why is information about "Secret Storage" listed here? 4S is useful for things other than key backup so it's an odd place to hide info about it. Possibly we need to combine the "Advanced" sections of "Secure backup" and "Cross-Signing" into a single section?

[daniellekirkwood]

I'm going to be asking the web team for sizing estimate of this one next week :)

[daniellekirkwood]

We think this is mostly UI changes and are already wrapped in to our definition of done for our Settings epic work... @dbkr would you mind taking a closer look and confirming that? then maybe also add a effort label?

[daniellekirkwood]

For internal element folks only this link should show you the new version of this screen. @richvdh / @pmaier1 / @giomfo would you confirm that the items in this issue would be addressed if we implemented the designs linked here?