W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > March 2015

RE: [outreach] Re: Executive summary / Group goals

From: David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 01:09:02 +0000
To: "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <54C00E24834FCE47B11EC129A84E7F78CCAEF8D2@VF2WDEXMB1.verifone.com>
On 2015-02-27 Chaals wrote:
>Hi folks, I had quite a hack at the page…
Thanks for the hack.  I went back to the original list for comparisonhttps://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Feb/0002.html


For my mind to engage, I need to see two lists with a map from the original to the Executive Summary, as follows.

List I (original, in two parts):
========================
First part (from the meeting)...
1. A fast and significant adoption of the technology (>100M+ in the first two years).
2. Level playing field (aka fair competition) for merchants, payment providers, customers, software vendors, and payment networks.
3. A great reduction in "stolen card" transaction fraud.
4. A great reduction in the amount of custom software that a merchant must write to integrate with new payment products.
5. Removal of the need for a merchant to hold on to sensitive customer data.
6. Greatly reduced payment provider switching costs for customers and merchants.

And gleaned from Monday's discussion...
7. Does not add (ideally reduces) the time required to make a payment
8. Enables value-added services to help payers
9. Requires as little new technology and as few standards as possible
10. Enables anyone to understand what they are doing (esp. its cost) when they make a payment to another person (or system or company or object)
11. Does not interfere with the ability to meet regulatory requirements
12. Enables people to "take their money out of the system"
13. Can be delegated to an "agent" (device, automated process, etc).

List II (from Executive summary) with mapping:
=======================================
A. Keep it as simple. ==> 9
B. Rapid, widespread adoption. ==> 1
C. Greater Security. ==> 3, 5
D. Innovation (lower barriers). ==> 2, 4, 8
E. Improved User Experience. ==> ?
F. Lower Costs. ==> 2, 4, 6, 7
G. Portability (of data). ==> 12
H. Legal everywhere. ==> 11
I. Transparency (understanding). ==> 10
J. Automatability. ==> 13

Thoughts:
========
Overall, looks like very few gaps.  Nice work.

I think it's significant that our original list did not mention "Improved User Experience."  Absolutely it belongs - it's a big part of W3C value-add, in my opinion.

I think "level playing field (aka fair competition) for merchants, payment providers, customers, software vendors, and payment networks" is only represented in the Executive Summary if you squint really hard.  I believe we should call it out more clearly.

I would also recommend adding "portability of application," i.e. "5 screens" - destop, tablet, mobile, tv, auto.  The ability to move >between< these devices is a (to me) a key compelling reason for the kinds of things we're proposing (e.g. user enters data on mobile, uses in auto).  I realize we need use cases to spell it out, but this kind of application portability is a core benefit of the Open Web Platform.  "Interoperable" is mentioned in the first sentence under "Goals" but I think we need a little more.

"Legal everywhere" will strike people who understand the problem as maybe too ambitious, and probably at odds with the simplicity goal.  The original statement comes closer IMO: "does not interfere with the ability to meet regulatory requirements."

Finally for this round, while "cart abandonment" is a problem, my hunch is that on mobile devices people use web sites to check prices; they buy things at home.

Suggested Next Steps:
==================
As we are fleshing out the use cases, we need to[1] (in parallel) consider what things we might create that serve the cross-purpose of addressing a use case and a goal (or something like that).

Also, I'd like to consider the simple Bitcoin implementation model and how it might affect how we might organize those "things" we eventually propose, i.e. (from Bitcoin):
* Full Client - for us, could translate to a definition of "a full implementation on a device" (of whatever we propose)
* Lightweight Client - for us, could translate to a definition of "a minimum-required-to-declare-victory implementation"
* Web Client - for us, could translate to a definition of (you get the picture)

Lots to do here.

Thanks very much for the effort, Chaals

Best regards,
David

[1] speaking as an IG member, not as the chair.

-----Original Message-----
From: chaals@yandex-team.ru [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:53 AM
To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
Subject: [outreach] Re: Executive summary / Group goals

- dlongley@


I trimmed the intro a bit, and tried to bring the focus back to working to develop appropriate standards to improve the Web, and payment.

I put all the goals into a single list again. I tried to mimc the structure Ian had used.

I expanded on the innovation, in part attempting to capture what Dave was talking about on this thread.

I added a *proposal* which I am not sure has general agreement (so I noted that), that a standards framework should allow for "person to person" transactions, as well as those where a business is involved.

And I probably made a mess, and obscured something important. So please check, and propose improvements…

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/ExecSummary


cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com


________________________________
This electronic message, including attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or company named above or to which it is addressed. The information contained in this message shall be considered confidential and proprietary, and may include confidential work product. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting this email immediately.
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 01:09:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:33 UTC