Skip to content

UX issues with the http basic auth dialog #378

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
allo- opened this issue Apr 21, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

UX issues with the http basic auth dialog #378

allo- opened this issue Apr 21, 2025 · 2 comments

Comments

@allo-
Copy link

allo- commented Apr 21, 2025

I wanted to add them to #377 but the list got a bit extensive.

Here some first impressions from a user new to the dialog. Nothing absolute, but some feedback on what the first issues are that I encountered.

  • (1) I cannot close the dialog with esc if I decide I do not want to login (I just don't want, I don't have the GPG password with me, or I want to use the Firefox password store)
  • (2) The dialog also opens for sites where no password is stored.
  • (3) On the flip side of my use-case in the other issue: Closing the dialog does show the Firefox dialog (with or without stored password)
  • (4) The dialog seems not to allow for a one-off login without storing the password
  • (5) The Add credentials dialog seems a bit unclear:
    • It has no username field, but shows an example for "password\nuser: username" in the textfield
    • The secret field cannot be edited
    • the filename looks prefilled (I think that should usually be the username field or domain/[username].gpg)
    • At least for me it doesn't show stars when entering the password
    • When I add credentials with filename "test.gpg" the dialog doesn't show the entry for the new credentials afterward (related to the filename suggestion not matching the usual pattern)
    • The added password is not commited to the git (is the pass script used or gpg directly?)
@maximbaz
Copy link
Member

  1. Agree!
  2. This makes sense because just like on normal pages, you might want to hit Backspace and find another entry that for whatever reason doesn't match the domain - next time it will be in the popup. Without this, users will be blocked to pick an existing entry that for whatever reason doesn't match the domain - which is possible on regular websites.
  3. This is also expected, if you don't have credentials stored in your password store, then you must have a way to type them in by hand - so closing the browserpass detached popup should let the browser take the control back and present you with the option to enter those credentials.
  4. Do you mean by one-off login that on page refresh you expect to be asked for credentials again? If so, in't this matching browser behavior when you enter credentials by other means, like manually - refreshing page after successful login doesn't present you with basic auth again?
  5. Good points, thanks for sharing, I don't think that part got tested much in this particular flow!

@allo-
Copy link
Author

allo- commented Apr 21, 2025

Yes, 4) is related to 3). If I want to enter the credentials one time, I need to close the dialog and get the Firefox dialog. I suppose that is the case anyway if browserpass doesn't inject a login.

I think the (maybe hard to solve) issue is trying to display only the browserpass dialog or only the Firefox dialog depending on what the user wants to use and where passwords are available.
I wonder if it would be good to store in the browser storage if a user doesn't want to use the browserpass dialog for a certain site.

You're right that one cannot know if the user wants to skip the dialog or to search for a password that cannot automatically be associated with the site. So the best option would probably be to let the user store the choice. Maybe even the last chosen password entry could be stored, but I am not sure about workflows of, e.g., people having many different accounts on a single site.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants