- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:41:11 -0400
- To: public-webpayments@w3.org
On 06/15/2014 09:36 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 06/15/2014 08:21 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 6/10/14 7:21 PM, Dave Longley wrote: >>>> Okay, but I am also demonstrating to you that competitive >>>> pressures and >>>>> "opportunity costs" are the keys to getting browser vendors to >>>>> respond. Right now we have IE, Firefox, and Safari working >>>>> fine, which leaves Opera and Chrome. >>>>> >>>>> The top browsers across desktop, notebooks, tablets, palmtops, >>>>> and phones don't have a TLS CCA problem. >>> "Working fine" is subjective. I disagree that there isn't a TLS >>> CCA problem, but, like Manu, won't argue the point and will wait to >>> see if WebID+TLS gains any traction. >>> >>> >> "Working fine" means that across IE, Safari, and Firefox, I can >> demonstrate the fact that you don't have to restart any of the >> aforementioned browsers in a quest to change the identity of the >> agent seeking at access a protected resource. > > Yes, that's demonstrably true. That's also not what is broken with > WebID+TLS. :) +1. The crux of the matter with UX and WebID-TLS isn't that it's *possible* to actually use what most would consider required features (eg: logout). It's that the *way* you interact with the browser to create identities, authenticate with websites, be aware of which identity you've authenticated with, logout, etc. is an unacceptably clunky, foreign experience that places far behind other technology in the problem space. That's, of course, my subjective opinion, but I would expect usability studies to confirm it. The UX needs to be equivalent or easier than what people do today with "Sign on with Google/Facebook/etc". It's just not there yet, IMO. -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 15:41:39 UTC