Draft OpenID 2.x User Experience working group charter

Tue Jun 1 17:26:11 UTC 2010

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: openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-bounces at lists.openid.net 
> ] On Behalf Of George Fletcher
> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:37 AM
> To: OpenID user experience
> Cc: ggrayum at janrain.com; openid-specs at lists.openid.net; Vidya  
> Shivkumar; Joseph Smarr; specs-ui at lists.openid.net; specs-council at openid.net 
> ; 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, chris.messina at gmail.com (chair)
> Dick Hardt, dick.hardt at gmail.com
> 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
> user-experience at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-user-experience
>
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20100601/d2021851/attachment.html>