Call directed identity "anonymous login"? (was RE: concerns about each user having a unique "URL")

[Dick Hardt]

Good dialog Drummond.

I don't think we need to change the specification, a good technically  
accurate description is best I think. There are numerous terms in the  
spec that likely will not be used by the general public.

Given that, I think we do need a term for directed identity for End  
Users.

We have looked at using Private Identifier -> conveys that other  
people don't see it.

-- Dick

On 10-Nov-06, at 10:40 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:

> I agree with Paul - although I like the technical precision of the  
> term
> "directed identity", it's too esoteric for the general public, who  
> are going
> to be very interested in this feature (I already find it's the most
> frequently asked question about OpenID 2.0.)
>
> I started a read-through today of the proposed Draft 11 spec to make
> editorial suggestions (I plan to submit it back to the editors by  
> the end of
> the weekend). I find it really does need more a little more  
> explanation of
> this feature. In crafting some suggested text for this, I found myself
> struggling with what to call this feature in terms the general  
> public will
> understand (even though it's a technical spec, the name of this  
> feature
> should IMHO be the same thing we want the general public to call it).
>
> The term Josh uses, "IdP-driven identifier selection", is technically
> accurate, but somewhat like "directed identity", I fear I it will  
> be lost on
> the general public.
>
> The best candidate I can think of so far is "anonymous login",  
> because that
> seems to go straight to the heart of the benefit to the End User.
>
> Is it strictly anonymous? No, it's pseudononymous. Furthermore, using
> IdP-driven identifier selection, an End User could in fact use this  
> feature
> and end up deciding to use one of their public, easily correlatable  
> Claimed
> Identifiers. So it's not always strictly pseudononymous either.
>
> But "anonymous login" still seems to be the best name I can think  
> of that
> lets the general public quickly grok the essence of this feature.
>
> Does anyone else have a better suggestion?
>
> =Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevithick [mailto:paul at socialphysics.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:04 AM
> To: 'Josh Hoyt'; 'Drummond Reed'
> Cc: general at openid.net
> Subject: RE: concerns about each user having a unique "URL"
>
> FWIW, I've found that that words like directed and omni-directional  
> are
> confusing to folks. I *think* Kim introduced these words first (not  
> sure),
> but I don't think they work. -Paul
>
> Josh wrote:
>>
>> On 11/9/06, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net> wrote:
>>> I'm surprised the 2.0 spec you cite (draft 10) has no mention of
>> directed
>>> identity
>>
>> I am the one responsible for the term "directed identity" not
>> appearing in the specification.
>> I think "directed identity" is a pretty nebulous term, especially
>> since it includes the word "identity" which is notoriously hard to
>> define.
>>
>> I wrote about the feature that can be used to implement "directed
>> identity", IdP-driven identifier selection. "Directed identity" is an
>> IdP feature that requires IdP-driven identifier selection, but it is
>> not the only thing that is enabled by IdP-driven identifier  
>> selection.
>> If you have IdP-driven identifier selection, then (IMO) "directed
>> identity" is easy to envision.
>>
>> Josh
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>