21–30 of 92 posts
Anything that means I won't have to use yet another password is a good thing. However I fail to see how this is useful: no sites use it, because no users use it. Let's not muddy the waters. Use openid. No excuses.
Am I the only one who has a dozen of OpenIDs, none of which I remember?
What does BrowserID do that every existing OpenID provider cannot? The BrowserID FAQ says the architecture is "decentralized", but login relies on Mozilla's browserid.org server.
Hope that changes sooner than later.
I'm working on a webapp that will be used by not-so-tech-savvy working people and this could be an interesting way to subscribe to the service without implementing generic openid (i think most of them wont understand it) or facebook/twitter etc.. login (it's a service for businessman). I must check if it's more difficult to implement than an all-internal email subscription and verification process.
I've implemented it on OpenPhoto and absolutely love it.
Quite a bit too experimental for me to register I'm afraid
* federated (like OpenID)
* open standard (like OpenID)
* no passwords / no typing / no memorizing (e.g. like FB Connect)
* possibility of browsers providing an integrated experience (technically possible with previous solutions, but no browser has done this so far -- in the case of OpenID for a very good reason IMHO)
* anonymity/choice of identities (like OpenID, definitely unlike e.g. FB Connect)
* no exposure to identity provider (this is unlike any existing solutions; if you log into a site, your OpenID provide, Facebook, Google, etc. will know which site it was; not with BrowserID!)
Check out Dan and Ben giving a nice demo of the BrowserID user experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x45Nt1fOMM. No passwords, no typing, and anonymity where desired.
If you're interested in the nitty gritty details, Lloyd explains the cryptographic assertions that actually let sites verify your identity: http://lloyd.io/how-browserid-works
(EDIT: format bullet points)
Anything that means I won't have to use yet another password is a good thing. However I fail to see how this is useful: no sites use it, because no users use it. Let's not muddy the waters. Use openid. No excuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like Firefox is not going to support OpenID, so any site that wants to take advantage of browser support will have to adopt BrowserID.
[deleted]
OpenID seems to be difficult for non-technical users to grasp. They don't understand what it is or the fact that they probably already have it. Even technical users can have issues (what OpenID login did I use, which of my multiple current Google accounts are being used, etc).
BrowserID is being advertised as the easier alternative for users and developers I think.
BrowserID is not Firefox specific. The JavaScript shim works across a number of browsers.
Anything that means I won't have to use yet another password is a good thing. However I fail to see how this is useful: no sites use it, because no users use it. Let's not muddy the waters. Use openid. No excuses.
This is a more pragmatic approach than openid. Most users have a secondary email for logins anyway, and browserid makes switching a snap. I think it will catch on, mainly because there s nothing new for users to learn, and everyone has an email addr
It seems to me the opposite is true. What is your source for this?
However I'm a little disappointed that they tell you to add it as a blocking (synchronous) JavaScript include in the head of your document.