Managing Online Identity- xcard

There are lots of great social websites out there that help to share media, thoughts, and peoples’ lives in general. Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Bebo, Cyworld, BabyCenter, the list goes on. While each offers a host of unique and great services to its target demographic, they all have a common thread in that they center around creating and defining one’s online identity. Why, then, is it that the most painful aspect of signing up for yet another social networking site™ is having to enter one’s identity / user profile? Over. And over. And over again!?

I propose creating a container for online digital identity that will facilitate sharing. The technology can be based on vcards, a standard simplify address book import / export. Vcards offer a handful of fields, but they are a bit simplistic for our purposes. Let’s create an xcard (extensible card). Xcards would consist of the following fields wrapped in XML:

Contact information
Name
Email (Real, dummy, otherwise)
Phone Number (Home, mobile, satellite)
Address
AIM / MSN / Yahoo / GTalk

Defining your personality
Favorite Books
Favorite Movies
Favorite TV Shows
Favorite Quotes
Other interests

Personal details
Birthday
Link to personal photo
Link to personal video
Education Info
Work Info (Company, Job Title, Work #, Email, Fax, Address)
Credit card information (CONTROVERSIAL AND DANGEROUS)

A dumbed down xcard has any number of practical applications-
Facilitate signup process at any site
Automate shipping / billing address entry

Technology surrounding the xcard:
1) The entire xcard (all information) gets shared, regardless of recipient. Fields are encrypted and privacy protected, fields can be accessed depending upon the key used to access the xcard.
Strengths
One card for one user- xcard version proliferation is avoided.
Privacy option for each field-
Only the proper recipient can access the information.
Users can specify which information a particular recipient can access.
Weakness
A hacked xcard yields the entire user information profile (dangerous!)
The xcard MUST have strong encryption to prevent information theft.

2) A shared xcard contains only information relevant to the recipient.
Strengths
xcard owners can control the flow of their xcard information.
Weaknesses
xcards would need to have an additional destination field to help owners keep track of who is passed what information.

Where is this information managed? How can xcards be tracked?
1) Each user manages their xcard locally.
Strengths
User remains in total control of their xcard distribution.
Weaknesses
Difficult to maintain xcard version control (if I change my phone number, how do I make sure everyone who has a copy of my xcard receives the change?)

2) Shell company stores xcard information- other websites / people access your information from this warehouse.
Strengths
If the user wants to change their online identity- they need only change it in one place.
Users can enter as much or as little information as they are comfortable sharing.
Weaknesses
Privacy / security concerns- an information warehouse would be a target for government subpoena / hacking.
User fear from losing direct control of their xcard.

Concluding Thoughts
Social networks (companies) want to maximize ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) which frequently gives rise to a walled castle mindset (AOL), while users just want to be connected to as many people as possible. How can such a standard be made appetizing to social networks?
This problem is generalizable, in that any site requiring a login ID is going to want “some” level of user information. xcards could be used to manage a user’s ecommerce identity much more efficiently. Major difficulty- increased stakes when credit card information is involved.
Facebook recently decided to open their doors to the general populace. Since they essentially already have most of the xcard information for their users, a high level of penetration (credible accounts) simulates an open xcard standard.

Competitors and Historical Efforts
Microsoft Passport made a bid at storing a user’s online identity. It failed (duh, the Microsoft brand is synonymous with evil. Who’s going to trust them?)
XFN and FOAF cards. These standards address interpersonal relationships, not individual identity.
Microformats- hcard. Similar concept.

More users = more better!

Communication-centric services aim to have as many users as possible. What happens when they get a lot of users? Try to get even more. “Duuuh. Everyone knows that more users are better,” you say. “Services that manage to claw their way to critical mass have made it to the promised land,” you say. Well I think that’s great! Err, umm… but what’s in it for me?

When a service first launches, users look around and see a desolate wasteland. Adoption is painful and scary, and many otherwise solid users may flee. But a few (keep your fingers crossed) fight their way through…

Only to find a land of frustration. What good is a wiziwig direct neural interface phone without someone to talk to on the other end? What good is a 7-dimensional holographic email if I’m the only one that can read it? An awesome product means nothing if users aren’t actively using it. Features and user interface may drive adoption, but retention they will not get you.

Let’s say a service gets lucky- a mix of space age features, wiz bang marketing, and some plain ol’ good luck manages to net a community (which, incidentally, is the real driver of retention). Widespread adoption is newsworthy in and of itself, and deserves a bottle of champagne. Make that several bottles of champagne, since few services make it that far. Then what? What happens when widespread adoption creeps towards ubiquitous use?

Getting the last 20% of users is what really differentiates a neat service from a social norm. As a user, I’m able to stop thinking about whether other people have accounts, are on the network, or are going to receive a message I send; it just becomes part of my social fabric.

When I want to send a letter, I don’t consider that a mailing address may not exist or that the recipient won’t get it; I just send it. USPS, FedEx, and UPS represent a ubiquitous enough system (addresses) and are reliable enough that I don’t have to think about it. You don’t have a phone number? You don’t have an email address? As a user, these questions deeply trouble me, and I would rather deny their existence than consider an alternate solution – get a phone, get an email address!

These services can ultimately become an extension of self. Other people come to trust in them completely because of their ubiquity and reliability. Sending a package to a particular mailing address is as good as handing it to me. Calling me on the phone is equivalent to walking over to my house to talk. Sending an email is essentially handing me a note to read. Having an IM conversation is comparable to chatting over a cup of tea. The reassurance I get from knowing everyone has bought in (and that the service is reliable) enables me to accept it as a fundamental part of my existence.

Ubiquitous use doesn’t have to mean everyone on the planet is using your service.  For college students, the Facebook usage rate is roughly comparable to that of drinking water.  Facebook managed to win a market segment, and its ubiquitous adoption boosts it from a neat service into the realm of social phenomena.  With recently announced plans to open its doors to the brotherhood of mankind in general, Facebook is (knowingly or not) making a bid at being a social tool on par with mail, phones, and email.  Exciting prospect!