Which is why a Microsoft passport service is in use at a lot of websites. But it doesn’t advertise passport primarily, it says, “got a hotmail account? sign in!”. The wording is different. It sure doesn’t say, “hey, please prepend your aol username to this url and write http:// in front of it”. Just not sexy.

Or look at Google, “sign in using your gmail account”.

In general I am in favour of all systems which use open APIs to save the user the hassle of signing up for yet another account he will soon forget about.

I’m not saying OpenID is bad, or that it’s architecture is bad, I’m simply saying that the current presentation of it will not take off.

The only way to use OpenID in a “decentralized” way is if you own your own domain. There, you’ve just eliminated hundreds of millions of people from having the benefits of a decentralized login. Gone.

So, for all of THOSE people, assuming they technical enough to be comfortable putting in a URL for a username, the URL is going to be someone else’s domain. (Like AOL’s or Myopenid.com’s). That’s totally centralized.

So… I’m saying that since most people are going to be using a *centralized OpenID*, you might as well not force them to use a URL for their username, since that only further limits the number of people who will actually use it.

@Randy - OpenID is about eliminating redundant and multifarious sign-in processes. Any site implementing it doesn’t have to worry about the sign-in process at all; all the authentication is the responsibility of the user’s OpenID provider.

@Josh - What Jyte adds, and what the poster neglected to mention, is a multi-dimensional “cred” system for managing the credibility of the user base. You can (eventually) sort claims by not only who made them or their interests, but by how credible the claimant was. This allows weighted opinion aggregation, and could be useful in a number of other contexts. Remember, once I have an OpenID, I can take it with me anywhere OpenID is accepted, meaning my reputation on one network can be accepted somewhere else.

@Tom - There’s nothing to prevent a site from having a little icon next to the OpenID sign-in box asking for an AOL screen name. It could then (using a published url-map) send the OpenID verification request to AOL (along with the user) who would input her password, and be sent right back to the site. There’s no need to learn anything, and no new password to remember, which is a good thing for AOL users.

Why is it every great idea has to been ruined by cumbersome sign-ups and sign-ins and userIDs and login screens and redundant pop-up windows?

This service is useless. Webmaster will not subject their visitors to ridiculous sign-up process just to offer a cute thumbs up/down feature.

If your username is anything other than a URL it is centralized. Do you like centralized systems? Go join the Microsoft CardSpace fanboys.

it’s a simple but powerful system…I wish google would offer a similar service…leveraged off google accounts…

on a whole other subject…jyte is actually harmless fun…i’m guessing it might be another 10Million dollar acquisition by yahoo (like mybloglog)

thumbs up guys

Not really sure how this adds anything to the conversation on the internet. It is basically a forum…

Telling my mom she “already has an openid” because she uses AOL doesn’t cut it. So, she has one, what is it? how many dots and words and suffixes are in it? What’s a protocol?

I think UI implementors are going to have to paper-over the fact that OpenID depends on a URL if it’s going to gain widespread adoption. For example, you can present an AOL user with a box that says “AOL username” and a drop down that lets them say “at America Online” and they can probably log in and follow the redirects (assuming you’ve hard-coded where the AOL servers are).

But, from what I’ve seen of most sites that use OpenID, including Jyte and Magnolia, only the geeks get it, and that’s how it will stay until the user experience changes.

Rather than forcing one to make a “statement” (or “claim”), the site should also allow users to ask a “question” as well. I know I made this mistake several times, but at the same time, I forgot about the details due to my excitement about this neat site.

Other than that, I think it’s great.

The sad, superficial fact of the matter is, I really like the concept of OpenID but sending my users to an ugly-looking sign up page just as I have piqued their interest enough to sign up, is not a user experience I particularly want to embrace.

I think you’re right.

http://jyte.com/spy

@David Kaye: Why is OpenID “icky”?

You’re supposed to support any claim you make.

I don’t see how this is correct in any way. Are you saying that this service will only be useful if OpenID takes off? I fail to see how these are logically correlated. If you don’t have an OpenID, Jyte will provide you one, problem solved.

The anti-OpenID bias here and in the comment thread shows how short our communal vision is. OpenID elitist? OpenID is a protocol. Is SMTP elitist? Is SSH elitist? That’s a purely ridiculous statement. Maybe that makes me elitist…

At the same time, protocols take time to get worked out. HTTP wasn’t perfected overnight, and OpenID is the same way. It will take some time for easy, meaningful uses for OpenID to emerge. Divorce your concepts of the protocol from the implementation. HTTP is the protocol, Firefox is the consumer implementation. OpenID’s Firefox will come, and there’s no logical reason to doubt that (especially looking at the amazing, creative community evolving around OpenID).

I’m also trying not to come across as too much of an OpenID acolyte. OpenID isn’t the be all and end all, but it is a step in the right direction in solving this huge identity problems of Web 2.0 and beyond. The FUD here is just pointless and makes this blog look noobish.

-Zaid

some kind of digg spinoff - blah