Limitations in the protocol affect logging into Get Satisfaction using OpenID.

Not mentioned by Lane was that we could auto-save your forms for you and repopulate them after the signing. We certainly want to be able to provide that, but given the cost of implementing such a form-saver was something we didn't have time for right now, and we didn't want to hold up offering OpenID support.

It was a "Something is better than nothing" decision.

Wait a minute... I'm just trying to help out here. Everything you and Lane said above is based on the premise that the only solution to the problem is to auto-save form data, which you don't have time to implement. Which simply isn't true - logging in using a separate window solves the problem quite nicely, and with 1/10th the effort required to autosave.

I don't think you get what I'm doing here; I'm having a discussion. I never said or meant to imply it was the only way to solve the problem, I said it was the way that I knew about and what I thought was the best next step. I understand you are trying to help, and I am very appreciative. Part of dicussing what you have brought up and testing it and forming an opinion of my own. It's called being the foil, or a devil's advocate: by bringing up holes in an idea, I can get more information from you that I don't follow or see on my own. I'm not trying to be dismissive or negative, I'm trying to understand better... I'm not a genius nor a telepath.

So why are you coming back with strawman arguments about popups and users' ability to grok OpenID? The least you could do is acknowledge this is a viable solution.

I think it would work. I don't think it would be a great solution, but it could be better than our current solution. Here's why I don't think it would be better than a staight forward form-saving solution. It forks user attention and brings up corner cases. So, we pop up a window that lets the user login with their open id: What happens if the user goes back to that window and clicks off of the login window on accident (the cancel action) but then completes the OpenID login? What do they expect to happen?

I myself got caught with a popup problem the just last night that caused tons confusion on sony's support site: In this case, the links on one page were reusing the popup window which was behind the first window. That's my reservation, that we won't do it well enough and we'll land into a situation like that.

I'm sure you're perfectly aware that an iframe can be used to work around whatever issues you may have with popup windows.

I think that would work much better than a popup, and will certainly be something I'll see If I can work up with ted. I like this solution much better than a popup because it doesn't fork the user's attention, it provides a straightforward path. If I had not made my last post, I would have never got this nugget from you. That's why I play devil's advocate, to get knowledge from those smarter than me to address the concerns I see. It might not be the best way to approach it, but It's what comes natural to how I converse.

It's not your responsibility to make people understand OpenID. If a user is logging in with an OpenID they already "get it". If they aren't, none of this is an issue for them.

I disagree. I think it is my responsibility to educate users on the features of my application and ensure to the best of my ability they don't get confused by any widget.

I have no idea how you're connecting popups and cross-window scripting to a user's ability to understand OpenID.

Confusion is additive. You can see it in action if you run someone through your site. As things aren't making sense (say, you're going to fast through the explanation or aren't explaining things deliberately as a user test) you can tell when someone gets totally confused by when they take their hand off the mouse and they sit back in their chair. I would like Get Satisfaction to have the best user experience possible, and so I am always testing and forming opinions about whether something would impact a users ability to understand something on the application. If something for the benefit of 1% of our user base (the openid users) adds confusion for the other 99% of our users, I choose to be wary about implementing it until I know more or have a better picture in my head about the solution.

Edit: I didn't actually say I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I appeared to be shooting down your ideas. It wasn't my intention, and I'll get better about that in the future.

Thanks Robert,

I've got this medical condition I some times have trouble controlling; it's called insufferable asshole syndrome. The funny thing is that it affects my mouth. :)

I don't think you're being a pain in the ass to deal with, I think I had mentally attached your persona to another user account and you got some of his/her bad karma. Looking back I was being unfair. I'll try to be better about that in the future. I tend to have trouble when I get suggestions from users that go up against priorities set by my superiors. Rather than getting angry at my bosses, I tend to project on the faceless internet-peoples.

I totally get your point, and it is something I definitely want to get in place. We want to add support for linking multiple OpenID accounts to one GSFN account as another means for account integration, and I imagine changes like you were describing would get slated into that feature when we get around to it.

Regarding the 1% issue: That number has crept up to about 3%, for both windows live id and open id. Curiously, there is about an 85% overlap of people who have both.

Regarding your frustration: Unfortunately, the only option available to me is to apologize for our lack of complete support. I'm sorry. We're in process of revamping our in-line sign in form, and I'll make sure that we improve the verbiage, if not the function, of the form.

Yes, I did read that. I think you have set this up as some sort of argument between us, which is unfortunate. I'm simply trying to point out an interesting take on these kinds of issues.