W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > July 2014

Re: VOTE: Revised Payment Initiation / Wallet Web Payments Workshop Use Cases

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:18:55 -0700
Message-ID: <53C7409F.8040208@sunshine.net>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 7/16/14 6:51 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Please +1/+0/-1 each payment initiation / wallet use case below in order
> to show whether or not you agree that we should try and attempt
> addressing the use case in the first iteration ...---------------------------------------------------------------------


> Use Case: Customer selects item to purchase on merchant's site, merchant
> generates a purchase request that will be processed by the customer's
> payment processor.
>
> Use Case: A developer can create a link with a specific payment URI
> scheme such that when a customer clicks on it, the customer's payment
> processor starts the payment process.
>
> Use Case: When a customer intends to make a payment, they are given a
> choice to pick among the intersection of the payment processors they're
> registered with and the payment processors that are advertised by the
> merchant.
>
> Use Case: A merchant advertises different details, such as price, for an
> offer of sale based on potential payment processor choice.

+1 all above.


> Use Case: A customer can associate a membership card, coupon, or similar
> token with a transaction to receive a discount or other benefits.

+0  I think these could wait until a later version. I know many 
marketing strategies use them, but many don't; essentially they're an 
optional add-on (IMO there's an argument that they're like tariff 
barriers -- somebody starts, then everybody does it, and it becomes 
cruft that we all pay for without good reason).

I suggest putting minimal resources into it, as a socket that the 
vendor must provide most of the code/structure for.


> Use Case: Leveraging variable degrees of identity/anonymity per
> requirements of the payment transaction.
>
> Use Case: A customer discovers an offer for sale by a merchant under
> terms that the merchant is comfortable with. The offer includes a list
> of payment processors that the merchant is capable of receiving payment
> through. The customer contacts a subset of those payment processors that
> they are capable of sending payment through to get finalized transaction
> details (such as price or speed) before executing the most desirable
> transaction.
>
> Use Case: A customer uses a native non-browser application on their
> mobile phone or tablet, or a web browser to make a purchase at an app store.
>
> Use Case: A customer makes a purchase from within an application for
> premium content, virtual goods, or subscriptions.
>
> Use Case: Temporary payment tokens for merchants. If token is stolen,
> thief does not get access to financial account. Tokenization mechanism
> that protects the buyer and merchant from theft of credentials.
>
> Use Case: The customer goes to a merchant website and clicks a buy
> button to complete a purchase without having to go through any
> registration process. During the purchase the customer chooses which
> information to share with the merchant which the merchant then uses to
> uniquely identify the customer if they perform any repeat purchases.
>
> Use Case: A customer goes to a website and is presented with a payment
> UI from their payment processor. The purchase can be completed without
> any additional information from the customer other than their consent to
> complete the purchase.

+1 All above.


> Use Case: A customer goes to a merchant website, and upon initiating a
> payment, the merchant's software transmits the merchant's payment
> processor options to the customer's software. The customer's software
> presents a choice of payment processors the customer has previously
> registered with that are compatible with the merchant's payment processors.

+0  Redundant? What's the difference between this and the Use Case 
that's third from the top, that says:
 > "given a
 > choice to pick among the intersection of the payment processors they're
 > registered with and the payment processors that are advertised by the
 > merchant"  ?


> Use Case: A customer visits a merchant's website and initiates a
> payment. Their payment processor presents them with an option to
> subscribe or add a pay-as-you-go token for future purchases from the
> merchant.
>
> Design Criteria: Consider using Web Intents or Protocol Handlers to
> provide an abstraction layer that could be used to solve both payment
> initiation and other problems on the Web.
>
> Use Case: A customer stores their wallet, credentials, and digital
> receipts with a particular identity/wallet/data storage provider. The
> customer decides to switch to a different identity/wallet/data storage
> provider and all of their wallet, receipt, and credential data comes
> with them.
>
> Design Criteria: Require data portability for customer financial data
> and identity data that is required for core transaction functionality.
>
> Design Criteria: Ensure the Web payments solution can provide an
> abstraction layer that integrates with existing payment methods (eg:
> VISA, Mastercard, ACH, PayPal, debit card, Premium SMS, etc.)

+1 All above.


> Design Criteria: Don't prevent multiple levels of security based on the
> type of transaction being performed. No auth for small amounts, PIN auth
> for medium amounts, Secure Element for large amounts.
>
> Design Criteria: Don't prevent the implementation of simple digital
> contracts and smart contracts.

+0  The two above: would it be possible to avoid the opening double 
negative, say by using a single positive, such as "Allow multiple 
levels..." and "Allow the implementation..."  ?

Steven Rowat
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 03:19:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:32 UTC