I would agree InfoCard failed. I would not agree that we can conclude the 
InfoCard UX failed. People understood the card metaphor and selecting them.

I think you are missing my point though -- the service model dispenses with the 
user once authorization has occurred. There is no opportunity for any UX that I 
have seen. Was that not clear from what I wrote Tony? ... or are you just being 
a curmudgeon? :)

-- Dick

On 2011-07-20, at 11:11 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:

> InfoCard UX failed, U-Prove UX failed these were far too complicated for the 
> user, so same issue comes up in either service or user centric models.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Hardt [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:08 AM
> To: Anthony Nadalin
> Cc: Manger, James H; OpenID Specs Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Mozilla BrowserID
> 
> um ... there have been numerous UX examples showing how the user can select 
> what is shared
> 
> InfoCard had a selector, BrowserID has a selector, Sxipper had a selector ... 
> there is no selection step in OpenID Connect except for deciding which button 
> to click on at the start -- or which identifier to type into the box
> 
> On 2011-07-20, at 11:02 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> 
>> So the same significant disadvantages exist in user-centric also, as they 
>> have not been figured out
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] 
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dick Hardt
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:31 AM
>> To: Manger, James H
>> Cc: OpenID Specs Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: Mozilla BrowserID
>> 
>> John: A user-centric architecture has the user's agent in the middle of 
>> identity transactions. There are some pictures in the slides I show in my 
>> short presentation linked here:
>> 
>> http://dickhardt.org/2010/12/oidf-2010/
>> 
>> In OpenID Connect, the user gives authorizes the RP to call an API at the 
>> IdP to retrieve information about the user. I call this a service-centric 
>> model. There are a number of significant disadvantages of this model:
>> 
>> 1) there are unsolved UX challenges to the user seeing what identity data 
>> the RP will get from the IdP. 
>> 
>> 2) if the user has multiple equivalent attributes, there is no UX for asking 
>> the user which one to provide the RP, so either they are all provided, or 
>> just one. Eg. the user may have multiple postal addresses, and different 
>> ones will be appropriate for different RPs.
>> 
>> 3) No simple mechanism has been specified on how the IdP can share claims 
>> from 3rd parties. In a user-centric model, the user agent can pull claims 
>> from multiple parties to satisfy an identity request from the user.
>> 
>> James: OpenID Connect does have dynamic client spec:
>>      http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html
>> 
>> Time will tell if any IdP will support it for acquiring identity data. (for 
>> that matter, I have not yet seen any major IdP announce support for OpenID 
>> Connect)
>> 
>> The map that Nat created here:
>>      http://openid.net/2011/07/15/current-map-for-openid-connect/
>> helps to navigate.
>> 
>> 
>> On 2011-07-19, at 11:05 PM, Manger, James H wrote:
>> 
>>>>> As for one of the major advantages of BrowserID: it is a user-centric 
>>>>> architecture unlike OpenID Connect.
>>> 
>>>> Can you explain what you mean by "user-centric" in this context?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With OAuth2 (and hence OpenID Connect, I assume) the RP needs to be 
>>> registered with the IdP. It is not user-centric because the user cannot 
>>> arbitrarily choose an IdP -- they can only choose an IdP with whom the RP 
>>> is registered, which may well mean only one of a handful of major IdPs.
>>> 
>>> BrowserID is user-centric in that the RP can verify the signature of 
>>> whichever email provider the user chooses. It doesn't rely on a prior 
>>> agreements between the RP and IdP.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> James Manger
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to