Why? Because it does not solve the actual problem -- people having more account details to remember than they like while at the same time people want to keep some handles/passwords different.
Now, there is a very simple solution to this hassle. It is partly technical and partly a matter of shift in thinking. A website can have a traditional login system and still enable the user to have a single online identity (not necessarily a public one) over multiple sites.
The technical part is about *always* requiring an email as a login handle. To sign up, an average website asks at least for a screen name, password and an email, right? For every other purpose besides login, the website identifies the user by the screen name selected at signup. Think about it. Have you ever been infuriated because someone else has already claimed your usual screen name at a particular site? How about your email? Can anyone claim that without resorting to black hat, presuming that the website in question confirms the ownership of a particular email address?
The shift in thinking boils down to the understanding that the login handle can be different from the internal screen name. It should be. The user might want to be seen as "Jeff Cunningham" at photo.net but on piratebay.org he wants to be "jefferson". However, Jeff wants to login with jeffc@yahoo.com:V3ryG00d?P4ssw0rd at both sites. It doesn't matter if two sites have separate login systems. Everything is okay if the login handles are verified email addresses at both sites so the users themselves can decide which one they use.
My dear fellow slashdotters! All we must do is spread the messsage of Good Login Forms Use Email Adresses Instead Of Screen Names. Let the user decide which email/password combination to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Use Freespire Linux. It is not suffering from the "everything in this distro must be open source" mental illness.
Why? Because it does not solve the actual problem -- people having more account details to remember than they like while at the same time people want to keep some handles/passwords different.
Now, there is a very simple solution to this hassle. It is partly technical and partly a matter of shift in thinking. A website can have a traditional login system and still enable the user to have a single online identity (not necessarily a public one) over multiple sites.
The technical part is about *always* requiring an email as a login handle. To sign up, an average website asks at least for a screen name, password and an email, right? For every other purpose besides login, the website identifies the user by the screen name selected at signup. Think about it. Have you ever been infuriated because someone else has already claimed your usual screen name at a particular site? How about your email? Can anyone claim that without resorting to black hat, presuming that the website in question confirms the ownership of a particular email address?
The shift in thinking boils down to the understanding that the login handle can be different from the internal screen name. It should be. The user might want to be seen as "Jeff Cunningham" at photo.net but on piratebay.org he wants to be "jefferson". However, Jeff wants to login with jeffc@yahoo.com:V3ryG00d?P4ssw0rd at both sites. It doesn't matter if two sites have separate login systems. Everything is okay if the login handles are verified email addresses at both sites so the users themselves can decide which one they use.
My dear fellow slashdotters! All we must do is spread the messsage of Good Login Forms Use Email Adresses Instead Of Screen Names. Let the user decide which email/password combination to use.
Read more Slashdot and take note what the programmers here are saying.
If that is not enough for you to solve the puzzle, you should really ask yourself if management job is the right thing.
Remember the Golden Rule -- never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.