Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

9

Requiring facebook is a bad idea. There is a significant number of people that don't use FB and there's no reason to exclude them. And others, even if they do use FB, prefer to register through other avenues (twitter, google+ etc.). Best to be as flexible and accommodating as possible, for both the immediate concern of acquiring registrations and the ...


7

There are very few times when I feel it is appropriate to only have external logins. If what you're doing is tightly coupled with the service that you're using for a login (e.g. Klout using Facebook and Twitter), then I'm willing to make an exception. I know some of the Stack Overflow guys might disagree with this (see here), but I prefer to keep things ...


5

Why is it wrong? OpenID has several drawbacks: You're actually going to a totally different website in order to register or authenticate. This is not how things work ordinary. For years, registration and authentication for a website was done on the same website: the user was moved to a different website either because he wanted to, or because he was ...


4

Bagcheck.com had an interesting take on this issue. http://bagcheck.com/blog/02-design-solutions-for-new-log-in-problems They realised that offering multiple social id login methods is counter productive if the user account isn't actually linked to those social ids. Thus, offering a "Login with Facebook" option when the site only knows about my Twitter ...


4

I thought you were wrong on this question with only two social network login - so I made my own very small test and found the following: Stackexchange at least 4 social login options Screenr 4 social login options But Pintrest, Hopflow and Slideshare all uses 2 social login options: Conclusion The reason for only using two different social ...


4

I know you are asking in particular about the OpenID implementation but maybe the following article published by MailChimp could help you: Social Login Buttons Aren't Worth It They say the implementation of social login buttons didn't have the impact they were expecting and that the whole thing is actually not worth it, in their case because it is adding ...


3

Sounds like you need to research your audience and their reactions to Login with Facebook a bit more. Spotify received a great deal of negative feedback when they started forcing FB login as their only system. If you can identify lost opportunities as a result of imposing FB logins on users then you should provide an alternative, unless you're happy to let ...


3

Fairly sure this is a duplicate question, but here's some research: http://blog.mailchimp.com/social-login-buttons-arent-worth-it/ Mailchimp, an application with hundreds of thousands of users tried to get people to sign up with social media buttons, and after a while noticed that it was having absolutely no impact on their sign ups. Instead of investing ...


3

At Stack Exchange, we have so many login options, that we made the decision to only show some of them initially and then hide the rest behind the more options link. Too many options just confuses users who don't understand what open ID is or how they could log into one website with another one. We chose our options to cover the vast majority of use cases, ...


2

It's an idea similar to Amazon Payments or Paypal. It's a secure way to insure that they are them without requiring that this site store yet another password/personal info that might get lost/eaten by hackers. Basically it's a way of saying "Here, this dude is legit because I am a big ole megacorp and have done my homework". It's precisely a way to stop ...


2

I have experience with two sites that allow users to log on with third-party credentials: Trello allows users to log on with either a Google account or with a Trello account Stack Overflow required an OpenID account, but let you use any OpenID provider you wanted. Over time, we implemented our own OpenID provider for Stack Exchange. The experience has ...


2

Offering too few login types can reduce the sign up rates, but offering too many can also do that. What the best combination is would depend on your application and your target audience. For example, if it is aimed at business users, LinkedIn may be a much better choice than Facebook. I would try to go for the three or four services that are most relevant ...


2

A slight change in wording should do the trick here. Since the accounts on other services already exist, rather than Sign up (which generally indicates creating a whole new account) say: Sign in with Facebook Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Google Then for creating a new account on your site, Sign up with xyz.com


1

All that is happening really is you are redirecting them to google, they are logging in, and google / twitter / whoever is passing a token back for you to use as authentication. Maybe tell them that, in a more user friendly way. This is my 5 minute stab at it:


1

I am afraid I dont have a definite answer but the only way to find out can be by doing some testing and finding out if users are willing to use Twitter\Facebook\Google login credentials as the two user research studies I found show that many users may not be willing to use those login options if an existing login already exists To quote this article from ...


1

I like the sites that present the option as two sides to a box. Sign up for an account or sign up using Facebook, Twitter, etc. (using the social icons). I can't think of an example right now. But I think this is the best compromise for the UX Sign in to XYZ.com Or Sign in using Username Facebook Twitter ...


1

I think the problem here is that if the user uses more than one Open ID to sign up on, limiting them to only one option is going to cause more harm than good. Say I have Twitter, Facebook and Google Open IDs, and I use each differently, Twitter for public web, Facebook for personal things, and Google for Google sites. Suddenly I hit an app and all I can ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible