First off, I'm not sure what precisely is meant by thin active clients, and active clients with OP functionality. Perhaps someone could provide more detail? Defining UX guidelines for identity in the browser seems like a related-but-different problem than improving the current OpenID Flow UX. However, I also agree with Mike's comment here. Perhaps the line could be rewritten to focus on the current flow and consider active clients from the perspective of how they change this flow?
Gabe Grayum Janrain On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Mike Jones wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for getting this out. > > In my view, you should leave support for active clients in scope for > consideration by the working group since having an active client definitely > should impact the RP user experience. For instance, if you have identity in > the browser, you probably want the RP to be aware of it and delegate some or > all of the identity UX to the active client, rather than handling it itself > by putting up a NASCAR screen, etc. > > Thanks, > -- Mike > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Messina > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 4:40 PM > To: Dick Hardt > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Specs-ui] [OIDFSC] Draft OpenID 2.x User Experience working > group charter > > No, there hasn't been any consensus about renaming it. I'm putting it out > there as a draft for discussion. > > I'll take that as one vote for keeping that line in the charter. Looking > forward to other feedback! > > Chris > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > > I have not seen any consensus to renaming v.Next to 2.x. Having said that, I > don't think this WG needs to have a version does it? > > I think this work would be really useful to the full spectrum of clients. > > -- Dick > > > On 2010-05-31, at 3:27 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 > > > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
