Some kind of compatibility, at least of the identifier and the
extension mechanism would be good.

=nat @ Tokyo via iPhone
On 2010/06/01, at 8:39, Chris Messina wrote:

No, there hasn't been any consensus about renaming it. I'm putting
it out there as a draft for discussion.

I'll take that as one vote for keeping that line in the charter.
Looking forward to other feedback!

Chris

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
Chris,

I have not seen any consensus to renaming v.Next to 2.x. Having said
that, I don't think this WG needs to have a version does it?

I think this work would be really useful to the full spectrum of
clients.

-- Dick

On 2010-05-31, at 3:27 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 s
pectrum of clients, including passive clients per current usage, t
hin 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 aut
hentication user experiences than full-page browser redirect,
? produce user experience guidelines for controlled and unc
ontrolled 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 a
uthorization,
? produce user experience guidelines for use of OpenID on m
obile 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



--
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
_______________________________________________
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-council/attachments/20100601/c2b77d21/attachment-0001.html>

Search Discussions

  • Mike Jones at Jun 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    Hi Chris,

    Thanks for getting this out.

    In my view, you should leave support for active clients in scope for consideration by the working group since having an active client definitely should impact the RP user experience. For instance, if you have identity in the browser, you probably want the RP to be aware of it and delegate some or all of the identity UX to the active client, rather than handling it itself by putting up a NASCAR screen, etc.

    Thanks,
    -- Mike

    From: openid-specs-ui-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ui-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Chris Messina
    Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 4:40 PM
    To: Dick Hardt
    Cc: specs-council at openid.net; openid-specs at lists.openid.net; specs-ui at lists.openid.net
    Subject: Re: [Specs-ui] [OIDFSC] Draft OpenID 2.x User Experience working group charter

    No, there hasn't been any consensus about renaming it. I'm putting it out there as a draft for discussion.

    I'll take that as one vote for keeping that line in the charter. Looking forward to other feedback!

    Chris

    On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.comwrote:
    Chris,

    I have not seen any consensus to renaming v.Next to 2.x. Having said that, I don't think this WG needs to have a version does it?

    I think this work would be really useful to the full spectrum of clients.

    -- Dick


    On 2010-05-31, at 3:27 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<http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID-User-Interface-Work-Group-Proposal>. Kantara Universal Login Experience (ULX) <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/ulx/> working group. RPX product design<http://rpxnow.com/>. Facebook Authentication Guidelines<http://developers.facebook.com/docs/authentication/>. Google user authentication research<http://sites.google.com/site/oauthgoog/UXFedLogin>.

    (ii) Proposers:
    Chris Messina, chris.messina at gmail.com(chair)
    Dick Hardt, dick.hardt at gmail.com<mailto: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<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




    --
    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
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20100601/752feed1/attachment.html>
  • Dick Hardt at Jun 2, 2010 at 9:16 pm
    Thin clients do some of the discovery / UX for the user as opposed to
    passive clients that have no idea that OpenID is happening, or active cients
    where the desktop client is the OP.

    The WG was to look at UX for v.Next which will have active and thin clients
    (which is why I don't think it should be called 2.x) :)

    On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Gabe Grayum wrote:


    First off, I'm not sure what precisely is meant by thin active clients, and
    active clients with OP functionality. Perhaps someone could provide more
    detail?
    Defining UX guidelines for identity in the browser seems like a
    related-but-different problem than improving the current OpenID Flow UX.
    However, I also agree with Mike's comment here. Perhaps the line could be
    rewritten to focus on the current flow and consider active clients from the
    perspective of how they change this flow?

    Gabe Grayum
    Janrain

    On Jun 1, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Mike Jones wrote:

    Hi Chris,

    Thanks for getting this out.

    In my view, you should leave support for active clients in scope for
    consideration by the working group since having an active client definitely
    should impact the RP user experience. For instance, if you have identity in
    the browser, you probably want the RP to be aware of it and delegate some or
    all of the identity UX to the active client, rather than handling it itself
    by putting up a NASCAR screen, etc.

    Thanks,
    -- Mike

    *From:* openid-specs-ui-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:
    openid-specs-ui-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Chris Messina
    *Sent:* Monday, May 31, 2010 4:40 PM
    *To:* Dick Hardt
    *Cc:* specs-council at openid.net; openid-specs at lists.openid.net;
    specs-ui at lists.openid.net
    *Subject:* Re: [Specs-ui] [OIDFSC] Draft OpenID 2.x User Experience
    working group charter

    No, there hasn't been any consensus about renaming it. I'm putting it out
    there as a draft for discussion.

    I'll take that as one vote for keeping that line in the charter. Looking
    forward to other feedback!

    Chris

    On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
    Chris,

    I have not seen any consensus to renaming v.Next to 2.x. Having said that,
    I don't think this WG needs to have a version does it?

    I think this work would be really useful to the full spectrum of clients.

    -- Dick


    On 2010-05-31, at 3:27 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<http://wiki.openid.net/OpenID-User-Interface-Work-Group-Proposal>
    . Kantara Universal Login Experience (ULX) <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/ulx/>working
    group. RPX product design <http://rpxnow.com/>. Facebook Authentication
    Guidelines <http://developers.facebook.com/docs/authentication/>. Google
    user authentication research<http://sites.google.com/site/oauthgoog/UXFedLogin>
    .

    *(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




    --
    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
    _______________________________________________
    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-council/attachments/20100602/fde034c9/attachment-0001.html>

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupopenid-specs-council @
categoriesopenid
postedJun 1, '10 at 12:47a
activeJun 2, '10 at 9:16p
posts3
users3
websiteopenid.net
irc#openid

3 users in discussion

Dick Hardt: 1 post Nat: 1 post Mike Jones: 1 post

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase