[WG-UMA] "Full-blown site" requirement?

Eve Maler eve at xmlgrrl.com
Wed Jan 13 12:37:26 EST 2010

In reviewing my action item 2009-12-17-4:

"Propose a requirement or design principle about constraining our V1 scope to "full-blown" sites"

...and the discussion we had about this in the meeting:

Tom [Holodnik]: The presumption in this scenario [personal loan] so far is that it's a "full-blown site". What about making payments through a kiosk or payment terminal? Eve: Is this in our scope for UMA V1? She'd like to assume that, even though the user might be using something other than a COTS browser, the site he's interacting with is a full-blown site.

...I'm not sure I'm capable of coming up with a proposed requirement that gets at Tom's concern without more data.  E.g., what sorts of kiosk-type use cases should we be considering?  Is the question really more about "full-blown browsers" (vs. limited-scope rich Internet applications) than it is about websites?

As a first contribution to this, I'd observe that any compliant user agent should be able to work with any compliant web server operating as an UMA endpoint, but of course that says nothing about the quality of the user experience.  The discussion that led to mentions of kiosks and such was about providing a good UX.  There are lots of ways to solve UX (if you haven't yet looked at Domenico's wireframes for one paradigm, you'll want to) -- *and* lots of ways in which we have to balance (a) staying out of the way of value-added UX creativity in designing our protocol while (b) ensuring that we haven't precluded some particularly compelling, simple solution from the user's perspective.

So, do y'all have any guidance to suggest on this AI?


Eve Maler
eve at xmlgrrl.com

More information about the WG-UMA mailing list