[OpenID] Fixing usability: can OPs indicate their claimed_id's are PPID's?

[Santosh Rajan]

Ok got you, didn't think of the nickname.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree.
>
> Google and Yahoo don't offer nicknames, last I checked.  That would
> definitely help alleviate.  AX also has a nickname type URI, so Google could
> support it.
>
> Some really poor RPs have actually failed to log me in because my OP did
> offer a nickname, and it didn't happen to fit into the RP's uniqueness
> constraint.  The RP didn't even give me a chance to choose another.  Yech.
>
> --
> Andrew Arnott
> "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
> your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:20 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> If it is a display name for showing to the user that is what SREG nickname
>> is for.
>> It doesn't need to be unique.
>>
>> If it is for showing other people who the user is that is more
>> complicated.
>>
>> John B.
>>
>> On 2009-10-29, at 1:15 PM, Andrew Arnott wrote:
>>
>> Santosh,
>>
>> Don't forget that some RPs (like mine) don't want the email address or
>> full name of the user.  OpenID has already solved the problem of RP and OP
>> recognizing the user.  So I agree this isn't particularly about the RP or OP
>> -- but more about helping the user recognize that indeed he is the one
>> logged into the RP he's clicking around within.  But to do that, we need
>> additional RP-OP communication.  So it is about the RP and OP after all.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Arnott
>> "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
>> your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Santosh Rajan <santrajan at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> This is really not about the RP or the OP. It is about the "user". If the
>>> user agree's then Google already provides his email address, and name.
>>> Maybe we need to re-think the whole issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> A usability issue with OpenID is that while "blog.nerdbank.net" makes
>>>> for a reasonable "username" for an RP to display as I log in with my "vanity
>>>> URL", my Google-given claimed_id at an RP is *not* suitable for display
>>>> as my username.  Rather than have RPs hard-code an increasing number of OPs
>>>> that issue these, particularly since some OPs can issue PPIDs at some times
>>>> and not others based on user preference, can we get OPs to somehow indicate
>>>> with the assertion that the identifier is not intended for human
>>>> consumption?
>>>>
>>>> We already have a way: a PAPE authentication policy with this URI:
>>>> (which comes from the ICAM OpenID 2.0 profile)
>>>>
>>>> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/privatepersonalidentifier
>>>>
>>>> Can we get Google, and any other OPs that issue these identifiers, to
>>>> includes this PAPE policy?
>>>>
>>>> One possibility is to include this PAPE policy in the response if it was
>>>> included in the request, but if an RP doesn't particularly want to *
>>>> request* a PPID, but merely wants to know if it gets one, requesting
>>>> this policy in PAPE doesn't seem appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> Any other ideas?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Arnott
>>>> "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the
>>>> death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> general mailing list
>>>> general at lists.openid.net
>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://hi.im/santosh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
http://hi.im/santosh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091029/14af72eb/attachment.htm>