<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [OpenID] popup protocol UX? Re: FB Connect,
OpenID and</title></head><body>
<div><tt>>>Login with your Independent (brand)
OpenID?</tt></div>
<div><a
href="http://openid.net/pipermail/general/2008-October/006179.html"><tt
>>>http://openid.net/pipermail/general/2008-October/006179.html</tt
></a></div>
<div><tt>>>I wonder if we'll have different "skins"
for OpenID.</tt></div>
<div><tt>></tt></div>
<div><tt>></tt>Isn't this brand called...errr...OpenID
perhaps?</div>
<div>><br>
>Incidentally, the above link hits the nail....</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This may confuse some people since OpenID is also the underlying
technology. If we have OpenID, and then ask people to recognize
*their* brand of OpenID (that being Google, etcetera), it may confuse
them to see a login box that just says "OpenID":</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>"Who's providing it?", they'll ask. Then complaints to
tech support that *someone* hasn't implemented their Consumer
correctly. Or it could be in the clearly demarcated area for OP
brandname, and then they may think that the Relying Party doesn't know
what it's doing!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It's difficult to know for sure how users will react, since they
aren't at that level of familiarity with it yet - and the effort to
create a consistent UI will help ensure that their familiarity will be
determined - so, consider also that Independent conveys a common
conceptual meaning that would be very appropriate to the context
(contrasting well with well-known, major brand names).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-Shade</div>
</body>
</html>