Personally, I'd rather not have to go log in to my email because a site decided it would go passwordless. From a usability perspective, you've greatly extended the amount of time it takes a user to log in and do what they wanted to do.
This is only needed once on the same browser. Once you do this, it will store it as a session or something. The text is not very clear on how he imagines this to work but that is what I can think of would work.
Yes I know this. I do use steam and every time I change something, I have to activate the new device with a mail. I personally hate this but some could actually have use for it.
5 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 23.9 ms ] thread2. People use different computer.
3. People who likes to sign off.
4. People who likes to use private browsing.
5. People who create new profile.
If you are Facebook, try that. Passwordless will not scale. Of course, passwordless scheme only works for very limited, selected websites.
I'm Markos Charatzas, the author of the post.
This is actually a series of posts written (http://qnoid.com/2012/11/10/A-post-about-user-identity-that-..., http://qnoid.com/2012/11/10/Mockups-on-user-identity.html, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9Zu-AHhXyo), talks given (https://speakerdeck.com/qnoid/user-identity-nsconference-201... https://speakerdeck.com/qnoid/user-identity) and open source code released (https://github.com/verylargebox/VLBUserIdentity) on how we should think of user authentication based on existing user behaviour (never signing out) and trends (long lived sessions, email verification).
When talking about mobile, people don't log out of every app before locking their device.
If you have any further questions after reading all the above happy to address them.