<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Breno,<div><br></div><div>I will grant you that the choice google has made to deny returning optional claims to the RP without a user dialog makes the UI simpler.</div><div><br></div><div>The problem for RPs is that they may still be willing to accept the login without the email and collect or verify the email in some other manner.</div><div>As other AX claims start getting used this becomes more of an issue. </div><div><br></div><div>From a RP point of view OP's dealing with AX requests in a consistent way is a requirement.</div><div><br></div><div>They now have no way of asking for optional claims for form filling during account creation etc if OPs take your approach.</div><div><br></div><div>If the issue is a reluctance to give the user fine grained control over the AX attributes returned, I could live with a compromise. </div><div><br></div><div>The "This site is requesting access to additional information listed below" is missing some urgency in my opinion.</div><div><br></div><div>It needs to be clear that the information will be returned to the RP.</div><div><br></div><div>At the moment you have two options "Continue Signin" and "Cancel". </div><div><br></div><div>Changing that to "Signin with all requested information" , "Signin with only required information" , and "Cancel"</div><div><br></div><div>The optional and required elements above need to be differentiated in some way. </div><div><br></div><div>This would reduce the number of check boxes and maintain the spirit of AX optional vs required claims.</div><div><br></div><div>The oAuth + openID solution you are working on is good but perhaps overkill for smaller RPs.</div><div><br></div><div>I would like to find a way that AX can work with a consistent claim set in a predictable way.</div><div><br></div><div>By the way we don't have the Google OP listed as a OSIS participant, we have Blogger but not the new OP.</div><div><br></div><div>Let me know if you want to participate in I5 this year.</div><div><br></div><div>I am happy to work on AX issues with you, though UX is not my area of expertise as you know:)</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>John Bradley</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 3-Apr-09, at 11:31 AM, Breno de Medeiros wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><Snip></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> What OPs need to do:<br> Vidoop: Nothing works now<br> MyOpenID: Get with the program and support the standard claim URI., otherwise it would work now.<br> Google: Stop ignoring AX requests that are not marked required. The word doesn't revolve around you.</blockquote><div><br>Well, should the world revolve around the users? They keep telling anyone who would listen that they don't like checkboxes. Checkboxes are also terrible for accessibility.<br> <br>Suggestions appreciated.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> MySpace: Support AX please<br> AOL: Support openID 2.0 + AX<br> Yahoo: Support AX<br> <br> OP's have had the specs and tools to do this for a long time now. It is not like we need to invent something new.<br> <br> Lets get what we have working well, please.<br> <br> Regards<br><font color="#888888"> John Bradley<br> <br> <br> <br></font></blockquote></div>T-8) / PDT(GMT-7)<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>