4 ms·

do you think twitter integration might work for you?

jamesbritt 16y ago
Not for me. I have zero interest in coupling some new Web app to any of my other online accounts. Just let me use a validated E-mail address and a password to use your site, and don't require me to let you hook into any other services I may or may not use.
- howard_yeh 16y ago
  i'll for sure implement login for jummpp.in itself. Before that though, i think it's a good idea I establish a baseline so I can see how many people actually want to use a separate login. This is one area i am not sure of. Some of my friends like facebook connect, some are surprisingly reluctant (despite knowing it's from me).
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    Then perhaps openauth or something else that's independent.
  - tsycho 16y ago
    I second the request for a non-FB/Twitter login. Two reasons: (1) I cannot access Facebook and Twitter from work. (2) I don't trust new websites with my FB credentials since I am paranoid about how they might spam my friends, compromise my privacy etc. without me even realizing it. With a validated email account, I would love to test out the site.
chunkyslink 16y ago
I think I would like to try it first and if I like it, then associate it to one of my accounts.
- howard_yeh 16y ago
  what are the thoughts that are going through your mind when you were like, uggh, i don't know if i want to login with facebook?
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    When I see that, I figure you're making an association with Facebook (or twitter, or whatever) on purpose. You're targeting the same audience as those who use that other service, and as such will likely add or alter features based on what that target audience wants. I don't use Facebook much, nor twitter all that much either, and don't see myself as part of (real or imagined) those demographics. So I'm skeptical that your service is for me, or will follow my interests. I also wonder if your service will be posting updates or tweets on my behalf ("I just joined a service that tweets things without my wanting them to!") or if at some point they'll be an unwelcome exchange of info among applications. While I'm sure some people see the option to use an existing ID system as a real convenience, I see it as a potential pathway to privacy invasion.
    - howard_yeh 16y ago
      thanks for the brain dump :) ya, you are different from the assumptions i am making. lesson learned
- Aaronontheweb 16y ago
  howard, I agree with the above comment - I think you'd probably have more luck getting people to sign up for your service if they could try or at least browse parts of it without needing to associate an account with it first. That way they can get a feel for what it does, what its value is, and why / if they might want to use it without having any cost. Every user is going to associate some "cost" with the time it takes to associate their account with your service or the potential risks of associating with your service, and giving them a little taste of what your service might do first is a good way to help them overcome their initial objection to the perceived cost.

Not for me. I have zero interest in coupling some new Web app to any of my other online accounts. Just let me use a validated E-mail address and a password to use your site, and don't require me to let you hook into any other services I may or may not use.

howard_yeh 16y ago
i'll for sure implement login for jummpp.in itself. Before that though, i think it's a good idea I establish a baseline so I can see how many people actually want to use a separate login. This is one area i am not sure of. Some of my friends like facebook connect, some are surprisingly reluctant (despite knowing it's from me).
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  Then perhaps openauth or something else that's independent.
- tsycho 16y ago
  I second the request for a non-FB/Twitter login. Two reasons: (1) I cannot access Facebook and Twitter from work. (2) I don't trust new websites with my FB credentials since I am paranoid about how they might spam my friends, compromise my privacy etc. without me even realizing it. With a validated email account, I would love to test out the site.

chunkyslink 16y ago

I think I would like to try it first and if I like it, then associate it to one of my accounts.

howard_yeh 16y ago
what are the thoughts that are going through your mind when you were like, uggh, i don't know if i want to login with facebook?
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  When I see that, I figure you're making an association with Facebook (or twitter, or whatever) on purpose. You're targeting the same audience as those who use that other service, and as such will likely add or alter features based on what that target audience wants. I don't use Facebook much, nor twitter all that much either, and don't see myself as part of (real or imagined) those demographics. So I'm skeptical that your service is for me, or will follow my interests. I also wonder if your service will be posting updates or tweets on my behalf ("I just joined a service that tweets things without my wanting them to!") or if at some point they'll be an unwelcome exchange of info among applications. While I'm sure some people see the option to use an existing ID system as a real convenience, I see it as a potential pathway to privacy invasion.
  - howard_yeh 16y ago
    thanks for the brain dump :) ya, you are different from the assumptions i am making. lesson learned
Aaronontheweb 16y ago
howard, I agree with the above comment - I think you'd probably have more luck getting people to sign up for your service if they could try or at least browse parts of it without needing to associate an account with it first. That way they can get a feel for what it does, what its value is, and why / if they might want to use it without having any cost. Every user is going to associate some "cost" with the time it takes to associate their account with your service or the potential risks of associating with your service, and giving them a little taste of what your service might do first is a good way to help them overcome their initial objection to the perceived cost.