On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 PM, chinaski007 <chinaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I haven't done any comprehensive profiling of them.  (As well, my
> particular presentation of the OAuth or Basic login options also may
> confound the data.)
>
> That said, the fact that any sub-population of Twitter users shows a
> preference for Basic Auth is surprising.  I suggest that linking
> another app to one's Twitter account is foreign and difficult for the
> average person to understand.
>
> The OAuth scare page presented by Twitter doesn't help.  It clearly
> hasn't been split-tested and is poorly executed.  It is likely
> responsible for a significant number of desertions.  Compare it, for
> example, to the Facebook app auth page.  Twitter's DENY button is just
> as big as the ALLOW button; Facebook offers "approve" and then a much
> smaller "cancel" link.
>
> Add in the current complexity and unreliability of Twitter OAuth, and,
> at the very least, offering Basic Auth as an adjunct option seems to
> make sense.
>


OAuth IS unfamiliar, YES. OAuth DOES ask more of the user, YES. Like
anything else new in technology, the better you educate your user, both
implicitly and explicitly, about the process, the better the adoption rate
is bound to be for a useful or required innovation.

In other words, handholding and spoonfeeding your users through the OAuth
process is going to give you better conversion rates than simply bouncing
them to Twitter with little or no notification or education.

--ab

Reply via email to