> You can use more than one autocomplete value at a time too. If your username is also an email address you can give the browser and any associated password managers a hint with ‘autocomplete="username email"’.
This whole paragraph is incorrect. While the attribute value does allow multiple tokens there is a very specific syntax defined in the HTML standard and it doesn’t support multiple field names (types) i.e. autocomplete="username email" is invalid. If you access ‘input.autocomplete’ on an input with that attribute value “” will be returned indicating this.
What this write up on 2fa is missing is that rather than using proprietary solutions like authy, we should be moving towards what we’ve now standardised as webauthn. If we had platform authenticators or we had a google/apple first party implementation of something like Krypton, we would be in such a better place security wise.
While Twilio does a lot right, they still only offer SMS and their own proprietary Authy solution for 2FA for their website. No TOTP (and still no plan to offer the industry standard) means that this has a whiff of hypocrisy.
Twilio seems to have some great engineers and I'm often impressed by the quality of their technical writing, but you'd never know it from their console horrowshow UX.
These are all super nice and I really wish more developers made use of these, but my main complain is not having username and password fields on the same page :/
>my main complain is not having username and password fields on the same page :/
This!
Our new Linux login has username and password entry fields in separate (and successive) windows, and they look quite similar.
Since I enter my password much more often (to unlock) than my username, I built up a reflex of entering the password, and the rare times I have to enter my username I often type in the password instead, visible to anyone looking at the screen.
The article is about how to improve a UI/UX using lesser known HTML properties. The article does a great job: these tags are helpful and not everyone reads the spec for fun.
The article is NOT about the merits of 2FA across SMS: that discussion is happening in about 10,000 other threads on Hacker News. Please go talk about it there.
> Reality is telcos have user enrollment almost on par with bank KYC, where everything else has great authN but with user asserted identity.
Are you sure? I don't mean that to sound hostile, genuinely asking. Because, at least in the States and Canada, I can get all of the +1 numbers I want on real SIMs for around a dollar apiece--or less if I work at it instead of just trotting down to Walgreens--and attach any name I want during the sign-up flow. In point of fact, I have a vanity 212 number I've owned for years. It is currently parked on a SIM registered to the name George Crabtree (that name even shows up on CID/CNAM).
Best part? The MVNO that provisioned the SIM is using a white-label service from one of the big four. Even the ICCID prefix is from the actual carrier and not the MVNO. That means that all of the automated API checks show it as a "normal" phone number provisioned on a "regular" SIM...and owned by Constable Crabtree.
Authy’s iOS app still doesn’t have an actions/app helper, so every time you need to switch to the home screen, find & launch it, search for the site, close the keyboard (the copy button is obscured by it), hit copy, then switch back to Safari/wherever and paste. So much friction.
Kind of implies the engineers who build it never ever use it?
Is type supposed to be "text" instead of "number" in the inputmode snippet? Wouldn't it still strip leading zeros the way it is now (with type set to "number")?
Taking over accounts is mainly American thing, the rest of the world is using same method to identify yourself to a telecom company - by providing your ID card or passport.
I want a one-step-login. Not two step (first username, then password) and certainly not three step (username, password, 2fa, all in seperate pages). This braindead concept needs to die.
If no 2fa is active on the account, just accept anything (including empty strings) in that field.
This is a really cool and informative article. I had head of the 'pattern' attribute before, but I hadn't come across 'inputmode' before. This will solve a ton of headaches for my future development work.
SAASPASS has a much better 2FA user experience on the mobile phone than SMS including URL callback to the 2FA app and app to app with SDK. For desktop environments configurable MFA methods include scanning encrypted barcodes and push login. More on the developer environment is here:
developer.saaspass.com
I work for an IAM consultancy/reseller and work on SAASPASS implementations.
mnoorenberghe|6 years ago
This whole paragraph is incorrect. While the attribute value does allow multiple tokens there is a very specific syntax defined in the HTML standard and it doesn’t support multiple field names (types) i.e. autocomplete="username email" is invalid. If you access ‘input.autocomplete’ on an input with that attribute value “” will be returned indicating this.
philnash|6 years ago
I've updated the post, thank you for your help!
noodlesUK|6 years ago
stockkid|6 years ago
Nice. I didn't know about that.
casca|6 years ago
philnash|6 years ago
inopinatus|6 years ago
See also: AWS.
ayberk|6 years ago
jffhn|6 years ago
This!
Our new Linux login has username and password entry fields in separate (and successive) windows, and they look quite similar.
Since I enter my password much more often (to unlock) than my username, I built up a reflex of entering the password, and the rare times I have to enter my username I often type in the password instead, visible to anyone looking at the screen.
I see this new design as a security issue.
crazygringo|6 years ago
There's just nothing you can do about it if some users have passwords but other users have different authentication mechanisms.
pixelcort|6 years ago
> You definitely want to consider using these attributes if you are building a login form with the username and password on different pages.
ljoshua|6 years ago
philnash|6 years ago
Zardoz84|6 years ago
sneak|6 years ago
https://www.issms2fasecure.com/
0xff00ffee|6 years ago
The article is NOT about the merits of 2FA across SMS: that discussion is happening in about 10,000 other threads on Hacker News. Please go talk about it there.
motohagiography|6 years ago
From an identity assurance perspective, SMS is the best available. From an authentication perspective, it's increasingly dodgy.
Reality is telcos have user enrollment almost on par with bank KYC, where everything else has great authN but with user asserted identity.
Critics of SMS are technically correct, but 9/10x I don't think they have had to solve identity in an open or federated environment.
techsupporter|6 years ago
Are you sure? I don't mean that to sound hostile, genuinely asking. Because, at least in the States and Canada, I can get all of the +1 numbers I want on real SIMs for around a dollar apiece--or less if I work at it instead of just trotting down to Walgreens--and attach any name I want during the sign-up flow. In point of fact, I have a vanity 212 number I've owned for years. It is currently parked on a SIM registered to the name George Crabtree (that name even shows up on CID/CNAM).
Best part? The MVNO that provisioned the SIM is using a white-label service from one of the big four. Even the ICCID prefix is from the actual carrier and not the MVNO. That means that all of the automated API checks show it as a "normal" phone number provisioned on a "regular" SIM...and owned by Constable Crabtree.
amatix|6 years ago
Kind of implies the engineers who build it never ever use it?
skunkworker|6 years ago
akersten|6 years ago
philnash|6 years ago
seaish|6 years ago
daveFNbuck|6 years ago
QuinnyPig|6 years ago
tobyhinloopen|6 years ago
reaperducer|6 years ago
sneak|6 years ago
philnash|6 years ago
sansnomme|6 years ago
9HZZRfNlpR|6 years ago
gsich|6 years ago
If no 2fa is active on the account, just accept anything (including empty strings) in that field.
aurbano|6 years ago
You could obviously add some info message below or above, but people tend to be terrible at reading.
Maybe if the 2FA input field is below the login button, after some text explaining it’s function..?
I’d love to see some UX test results on this with a bunch of real users of varying tech skill levels.
cyberferret|6 years ago
duxup|6 years ago
homero|6 years ago
hk__2|6 years ago
A simpler one that the pattern attribute, but more hacky-er, is using input type="tel", which I’ve also seen used for credit card number inputs.
notlukesky|6 years ago
developer.saaspass.com
I work for an IAM consultancy/reseller and work on SAASPASS implementations.