Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - RE: SP embedded DS (WAS: [Shib-Dev] SHIB Status call -- 7/12/2010 -- 12:00 pm EDT, 9:00 am PDT)

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

RE: SP embedded DS (WAS: [Shib-Dev] SHIB Status call -- 7/12/2010 -- 12:00 pm EDT, 9:00 am PDT)


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Scott Cantor" <>
  • To: <>
  • Subject: RE: SP embedded DS (WAS: [Shib-Dev] SHIB Status call -- 7/12/2010 -- 12:00 pm EDT, 9:00 am PDT)
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:17:33 -0400
  • Organization: The Ohio State University

> Difficult to say since as you point out it is indeed a mockup. In general
> where what we have is different from what is up there is because of an
> active decision that we made to not stray into difficult areas.

You have an interesting definition of "difficult" if you're working on this
to begin with. ;-)

> The two difference which catch my eye are:
>
> 1) We go to a separate DS page rather than have the wonder "magically
> appearing div". This was an active decision motivated by potential
> portability and accesibility issues in the face of finite resource.

I thought the original demo I saw used some kind of similar "pseudo window"
rather than replacing the entire app page. I don't think it's impossible to
do this eventually, and if it can't be made accessible, I suspect web 2.0 is
in trouble. But I'm sure it will take some work, yes.

I would agree that that is a key point of the mockup. We're suggesting that
a popup of some sort is ultimately less disruptive to users and feels more
natural then replacing the app page.

However...

> 2) We go to the login service in the same window and tab. Again
> portability, accesibility & cost were important, but to my mind equally
> important is the "same experience" argument. Throwing up separate windows
> (or a constrained size) may be normal for Passport, but it isn't
necessarily
> so for other identity provision. However in all cases there is a
mechanism
> to log in using the current frame (and I have to assume that this includes
> provision to get back to the SP)

That one I agree with, but is likely to face opposition from Google, et. al.
(let's pretend Google will listen to anything we say anyway). The most we
agreed to was that it was important to allow for IdPs that insist on full
frame login (so the popup would close at that point) but that others will
probably insist on using the popup.

I think it's fine for us to feel that it's better to go full frame and
encourage that for consistency.

But the mockup isn't at that level of sophistication. The issue is discussed
on the comments page, I think.

-- Scott





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page