Active clients or no active clients -- I am in full support of
creating best practices (using research) for login/connect style
actions across a variety of platforms. Regardless of the technology
used (and whether or not the technology actually exists yet), RP
adoption depends on having a clear set of standards.
On Jun 1, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
I think that the full spectrum makes sense as we would want
consistent UX given that the charter of the core working group has
the full spectrum
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of George Fletcher
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:37 AM
To: OpenID user experience
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Vidya
Shivkumar; Joseph Smarr; [email protected]; [email protected]
; David Recordon
Subject: Re: Draft OpenID 2.x User Experience working group charter
So I'm one who would like to see the UX for a full "spectrum of
clients" be included in the charter. I think that many of the UX
issues related to redirects and SP-Initiated logins can be solved
with more "active" clients. I would like to see experiences that
rely on more than persistent cookies or HTML5 local storage as the
mechanism to remember user's preferences. Of course the UX for a
user without an "active" client should work and be as smooth as
possible.
Thanks,
George
On 5/31/10 6:27 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
Mike Jones prepared the initial version of this charter, and I took
the liberty of renaming v.Next to 2.x, and made compatibility with
2.x an explicit goal of this work.
I'm reluctant of the applicability of this work to active clients
and have subsequently removed this line:
· produce user experience guidelines for supporting for a
spectrum of clients, including passive clients per current usage,
thin active clients, and active clients with OP functionality,
Feedback welcome.
Chris
(a) Charter.
(i) WG name: OpenID 2.x User Experience.
(ii) Purpose: Produce a user experience specification or
family of specifications for OpenID 2.x that address the limitations
and drawbacks present in the OpenID 2.0 that limit OpenID’s
applicability, adoption, usability, privacy, and security. Specific
goals are:
· produce user experience guidelines for less intrusive
authentication user experiences than full-page browser redirect,
· produce user experience guidelines for controlled and
uncontrolled release of attributes,
· produce user experience guidelines for use of identities
and attributes by non-browser applications,
· produce user experience guidelines for optimized protocol
flows combining authentication, attribute release, and resource
authorization,
· produce user experience guidelines for use of OpenID on
mobile devices,
· seamlessly integrate with and complement the other OpenID
2.x specifications.
Compatibility with OpenID 2.x is an explicit goal for this work.
(iii) Scope: Produce a current generation OpenID user
experience specification or specifications, consistent with the
purpose statement.
(iv) Proposed List of Specifications: OpenID 2.x User
Experience and possibly related specifications.
(v) Anticipated audience or users of the work: Implementers of
OpenID Providers, Relying Parties, Active Clients, and non-browser
applications utilizing OpenID.
(vi) Language in which the WG will conduct business: English.
(vii) Method of work: E-mail discussions on the working group
mailing list, working group conference calls, and face-to-face
meetings at the Internet Identity Workshop and OpenID summits.
(viii) Basis for determining when the work of the WG is
completed: Work will not be deemed to be complete until there is a
consensus that the resulting protocol specification or family of
specifications fulfills the working group goals. Additional
proposed changes beyond that initial consensus will be evaluated on
the basis of whether they increase or decrease consensus within the
working group. The work will be completed once it is apparent that
maximal consensus on the draft has been achieved, consistent with
the purpose and scope.
(b) Background Information.
(i) Related work being done in other WGs or organizations:
Draft User Interface (UI) Extension. Kantara Universal Login
Experience (ULX) working group. RPX product design. Facebook
Authentication Guidelines. Google user authentication research.
(ii) Proposers:
Chris Messina, [email protected] (chair)
Dick Hardt, [email protected]
Additional proposers to be added here
(iii) Anticipated Contributions: None.
--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate, Google
Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private
_______________________________________________
user-experience mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-user-experience
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
