3 ms·
I mean, yeah, it's technically the right thing to do. But it's just shy of impossible to implement, and it presents a goofy user experience to your users. oAut
by qeorge 17y ago
I mean, yeah, it's technically the right thing to do. But it's just shy of impossible to implement, and it presents a goofy user experience to your users.
oAuth is actually really easy to implement. I've done it several times now, never takes more than an hour.
I also find the user experience to be pretty solid too. Whats your specific complaint?
It is, after all, just somebody's Twitter account, not their banking credentials.
Problem being many people use the same password for Twitter as they do for their email.
- warfangle 17y agoI concur - I really like the user experience with oAuth. As a user, you absolutely know that a) the service they're signing up for doesn't get their twitter credentials, b) they get more value out of the original service, c) they don't have to remember / make up / reuse yet another password. It's a lot like the paypal experience... Paypal handles all the "dangerous" stuff, like billing information; the user knows that it's paypal handling it, because it's on paypal's site; when they're done paying for it, they get redirected back to the merchant. It's a workflow many, many people are very, very comfortable with. It's a far sight easier to wrap your brain around than OpenID, that's for sure.