Why use Facebook Login and Google Plus Login on websites?

Although this has been around for a couple years now, I still see people refuting the third-party login systems and saying they do more harm than good. But there are a few good reasons to use them!

For big sites, you will want your own login. For example, your bank, your twitter and other social networks, your google conglomerate of a profile, etc. But what about those other websites that you also would like to register and subscribe to?

This is where I feel that there is a big misconception over the login features. Both google and facebook have a system to tell you what they are going to send to that website through logging in through them. But I think the website needs to be clear on their intentions with the information, and that it is actually just as secure (if done properly) than coming up with another password.

I’ve read articles from developers of widely used applications, and they seem to say that the social logins may “give them too many options”, or that “people think it will take their password”. Maybe facebook plagued the login feature by their past implementations that allow a third-party user to post things to their wall when they did not want that. In all cases, it shows that the user does not know the intentions of the platform using the social login, and they have the right to do so. I believe this is a design flaw at this point.

 

Social logins make it easier to sign in to another service, but also removes the hassle of handling a password for the user, and the account management of the developer. Spam accounts are already dealt with on the facebook and google end, so this can cut back a lot of fake user accounts using fake emails. Heck, if the developer is smart enough to put in a social login, hopefully this means they know a thing or two about security. I wouldn’t want to trust a system that sends my raw password “over-the-wire” or doesn’t hash my password now would I? And even if they find my token insecure, it really only hurts that app and does not compromise anything else.

An example of great social logins in my experience were modern game apps that use your facebook login to see if your friends are playing the same game. No posts were made to my account, and I didn’t have to worry about a password.

Trust is the key in this situation. Just putting a little lock image and a brief explanation next to it might make a world of difference. But be weary, having too many fields might scare away someone trying to log in. I would recommend not making the sign-in buttons too large and redundant with words. And I would suggest to have one option or the other, such as “Sign in” text, then the social login buttons below, then maybe a link to switch back to the traditional username and password form.

For me, as a developer, I see these login methods as an opportunity to cut down on spam registrations, avoid numerous password resets, and sign in without having to retype as password each time (if signed in to the service already). I think the security and benefits just need to be relayed to the end-user, so they don’t think you are trying to steal all of the information from their social media account.

Sounds fair to me. Thanks for reading!

 

Using ID’s instead of Digital Wallets?!

Digital wallets was a hot topic back when phones were exploding with new ways to transfer and communicate information between other devices we are around all the time. This includes our TV sets, computers, bluetooth car stereos, or even the cars themselves. But one thing that has not been exploding with popularity is digital wallets. Why is this?

Well money is a very important aspect of your data. Online banking and purchases need to be the most secure as possible in order for people to trust them. The fact is, is that data can be spoofed with false information. And if false informatin is given, someone else could make purchases in your name. This is very bad.

But when you think about the point of using a phone to manage payments, the point is to reduce time fumbling through giving information to the checkout and to keep less plastic with you that can get lost or stolen. So is there a solution?

Well one item that you probably need to always have on you is your Identification. This photo ID can be used to legally operate a vehicle, verify a credit card purchase, buy items with age requirements, or even go outside of the country. Yes, that information should be secure because the information is used by security at border control to review your private information, but maybe it could have a second source of information that is not as secure that can easily identify you as you?

Think about it: If you want to buy something from a shop. You may or may not need your ID. But if you could use your ID to create a “profile/account” with this store, it would be convenient to have the information digitally accessible right?

What if this process exists:

1) Touch card to the card reading sensor.

2) The teller will see your picture on-file to verify that it is, in fact, you. But they can also take a look at the card to make sure your picture matches as a secondary verification.

3) Put in a PIN number to verify large purchases. A PIN number would not be stored on the ID itself, so it cannot be spoofed.

4) Choose which bank you would like to use for your purchase.

Viola! You can now easily make an account with a store, and easily buy things from there in the future! Maybe combine this with facial recorgnition software, and you have the ultimate checkout system!

It solves the biometric problem of being inconsistent with fingerprints. It solves the problem of being able to spoof data. And it prevents a fat wallet full of cash and credit cards that you carry everywhere. Nice.

Now there just needs to be a centralized system for keeping your receipts… I throw most of them away anyway.

Google + comes off as an Advertising Board rather than a “Social Network”

What is a social network anyway?

Ok, so you can make an argument about what a social network really is, but what you can’t deny is that the Google Plus network has no features that resemble a place on the web to be advertised to. But after all, it makes sense, considering that what Google does boils down to advertising in the end.

So what makes it seem like an advertising avenue than a legitimate place to socialize with people you know? And the answer to that is this: it is the way they collect and show your information.

This sounds familiar to a techie that knows about the behind the scenes of Facebook (which by the way looks weird to me having a capital letter), and of course everyone else who doesn’t know how Facebook really works, just that it does. A quick explanation, is that Facebook analyzes each person’s feed to give you an ordered list of what they may want to see the most. There is too much information being posted by everyone you know to show you everything in one page, so Facebook tries to order this of importance to show you the most important updates first. Pretty ingenious really.

So how is Google + different, and why don’t people use it the same way?

Both Facebook and Google put together a list of pages that you follow, pages that you like (or +1… I guess), or groups or “communities” that you are a part of, and give you updates on all of them at once. But what is each one focusing on? Google is focused on bringing you content from what you follow, where Facebook is focused on bring you content from your friends and family, and of course random pages that you like. Right when you join, you are encouraged to join “communities” in Google+. On Facebook, you are encouraged to find people you know, and just “like pages”, rather than join them.

So a main point that this comes down to, is would you rather see information from random people in communities or posts from friends and ocassional updates from pages? The answer is: occasionally both, but more likely from friends. And who may want random posts? Maybe smaller, less general communities will offer some value, right? Probably could.

But what do these communities offer? Well it is a fantastic place to get your word out to a good number of people. And you see where I am going with this… this is what advertising is. People who post about what people may most want to read will be the ones in the spotlight with Google+.

Don’t get me wrong though with this, Google communities are honestly a great concept and I have made my own myself. But Google + as a whole network falls short in being a platform that people want to get updates from.

Why won’t people post their photos and statuses on Google+?

Honestly, I’ve used Google+ for a little while now, mostly to create Community pages and meet and talk with people there. But when it comes to photos, I can see it becoming a really confusing interface to use. Google automatically can sync photos from your phone to your Google profile. This is truely a fantastic service that has a ton of potential! But when you land on your profile, it shows your photo highlights, as if Google somehow knows what your photo highlights are for you? So you click to see all your photos, but they are not a part of your page just yet. In fact, you can’t even add the photos to an album easily unless you click the small checkmark and share it with arbituary circles, or go into the individial photo and click a “more” drop-down. How anti-intuitive! Why can we not easily organize our photos, when we can so easily organize our ‘circles’? This is a question I would ask the designers of the interface of “Plus”.

Is Google+ a good place to put my business information?

Google + is actually a great place to put a page of information about a business, especially after they integrated services with google maps and youtube. However, take the service with a grain of salt. While it is a great place to have some short ‘n sweet info for a person passing by, that is what most of the traffic will be: a quick glance at the company profile. I would spend just a little time putting in the information that people can quickly reference, but that is all the effort you would really need.

Should I get involved with Google+?

That is the thing. People are not using Google + very much, and probably because of some of the reasons I mentioned above. When you create a social network, you need to explain to people how they recommend you use their service. People like to be on the same page with each other, and not “be going in blind”, so-to-speak. People want to understand the concept of what is being presented, so that they are not guessing at what they should be using it. If it is too complicated, redesign the interface. If the concept is not understood, explain it. People like a standard to follow, but the freedom to explore past it if they would like, and that standard really hasn’t been established that well with this platform. Remember the campaign with the “YOU” circled with a bunch of arrows around it? Its great that Plus is about ME, but what can I really use it for, and how can I use it? It is probably too complicated to explain to many people, and if it is not complicated, then maybe too disorganized.

 

TL;DR version: Google focuses on generic communities, does not focus on a simple photo organization service, and does not focus on connecting friends and family as much as Facebook does.