Wallets (was: Re: Web Payments Working Group Charter review (Manu))

On 07/07/2015 06:03 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>> Wallets
> 
> I really don't like the wallet skeumorphism. When we're done, I
> don't expect that what we will have will resemble a wallet at all.
> For those that have worked on these systems, a wallet is a really
> poor metaphor that helps us align with the current industry language,
> but that's about it.
> 
> I strongly disagree. We will not have a wallet when we are done but 
> we will have an interoperable way for browsers to interface with 
> wallets (both native and cloud-based).

In the end (version 2+), we'll have an interoperable way for /user
agents/ (browsers aren't the only important thing on the Web) to
interface with /payment services/ (aka payment agents).

Some of these payment services will have functionality that looks like a
digital wallet (but that's a very limited way of looking at what we're
trying to do here). Other payment services will have functionality that
looks far more like Siri for commerce than a wallet.

I get that we may have to "market the message" a bit to communicate this
to the general public. A charter, however, isn't intended for the
general public, it's intended for W3C Advisory Committee
representatives. W3C AC reps tend to be highly educated, technically
minded people. Sure, we may need to market a bit to them as well, but
"wallet" may be misleading (at least, that's the point I'm trying to make).

I don't think this is a make or break thing, just that we should be very
careful NOT to buy into our own marketing message. If folks think that
all we are doing is creating an interface to a digital wallet, you're
missing the point of what this work is capable of accomplishing.

> The linked data, fuzzy, user space concept where a payment request
> is "resolved" through some process that crawls the payer's possible 
> payment instruments stored in a myriad inter-linked private places on
> the Web is too abstract for what we are trying to solve today. We 
> should be standardising the interface from the Web to this wallet 
> service in a way that allows this service to evolve into something 
> that can do search and discovery one day.

My warning is that we should be standardizing the interface to this
payment service in a way that doesn't prevent the future that we want,
which is far more broad than wallets containing things that we provide
to websites.

> Finally, the concept of a digital wallet is well understood and is 
> even being adopted by those who avoided the terminology in the past 
> like Apple [1]. For us to pro-actively avoid the terminology used by
>  the industry is a recipe for confusion and apathy toward our work. 
> The standardization process starts to appear like a well meaning 
> academic exercise with no pragmatic purpose or understanding of 
> reality.
> 
> TL;DR: The rest of the world are using wallets but they don't have
> an interoperable way to make them work with the Web. We should be
> fixing that problem not trying to persuade everyone that we know
> better.

My point was that giving "wallets" special attention in the charter
could turn out to send the wrong message. I think we're doing that
primarily for marketing/messaging purposes, and maybe that's the
trade-off we need to make.

The downside here is that people will think that we're primarily
interested in creating a standard API for wallets, and they expect
wallets to do everything their current physical wallet does. This
functionality includes holding receipts, coupons, and identity
information - all of which were specifically placed out of scope for
version 1 with no concrete plan to do anything about it for version 2.
So, doing that may cause confusion as well.

> We should put some time aside on the Thursday call to discuss a 
> different way of describing what we're creating. It's more akin to a 
> "payment service discovery" mechanism than a "wallet".
> 
> I disagree. I don't think we are creating a wallet or a payment 
> service discovery mechanism. We are standardising the mechanism for a
> payer and payee to exchange payment terms so that wallet providers 
> can build great wallets that simply plug into the Web ecosystem and 
> payee's can offer user's a better payment experience (if they are 
> using a wallet that implements this standard).

I think that we are standardizing a mechanism for a payer and payee to
transact over the Web so that payment service providers can build great
experiences that simply plug into the Web ecosystem. Wallets are a part
of that, but they are not central.

A wallet does not help you perform:

1. Negotiation of Terms, or
2. Payment Processing

We should mention wallets, but in a way that does not make it seem like
the concept is central to the work we're doing. The current charter
makes it seem like wallets are central to the work we're doing.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice
https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 01:01:47 UTC