Here's a nifty article that talks about just that.

http://blogs.pathf.com/agileajax/2006/05/10_business_rea.html

I'm really surprised that people thing we made such a huge difference...when in all reality, we didn't do that many changes...is it because we didn't show the main page this time? It really seems like that's what it is.

I also want to thank Linda for doing such a great job. Sometimes, I felt people were kinda harsh..most groups had 3-4 people and were doing the same amount of work as just the two of us. It was hard to come into class to see the amount of progress the groups were making from week to week and knowing that we didn't have that kinda of progress each time. I'm not complaining about not having another person..I really liked working with just one other person, but sometimes it was really overwhelming trying to get so much done!

In the end, though, I'm really proud of what we accomplished. Thanks so much for all your feedback, good and bad....anal and general! This was a great experience!

This is really cool because I have an openID and it's a pain in the bottom to remember the user name/password combination. I never can remember it...so I'm happen that it's getting done this way.

I use this with flickr as well, I can't remember my flickr ID, so i just use my YahooID to login there.

Here is a list of several reasons

Jesse James Garrett coined the term as Ajax, not AJAX.

A quote from the source "The name is shorthand for Asynchronous JavaScript + XML". It is intended to be a shorthand, not an acronym. And notice it is "+", not an "and" indicating a collection of technologies.

Another quote from the source "I needed something shorter than “Asynchronous JavaScript+CSS+DOM+XMLHttpRequest” to use when discussing this approach with clients.". Ajax is not just Asynchronous JavaScript and XML, it's CSS and DOM as well. Moreover JSON is becoming a more popular format for data interchange. Should "AJAX" then instead be coined as "AJAJ" ? Or if an application happen to use Text instead, will they call it as "AJAT" ?
In an interview on The story behind Ajax, Jesse said "I thought of Ajax as a convenient [term]. It was never intended as an acronym.".

the above three bullets should be sufficient to convince anybody to use "Ajax" instead of "AJAX". But if not, here are some more reasons to switch to the correct usage of term:

Wikipedia entry clarifies that Ajax is not expected to be an acronym.

A Google Fight between AJAX and Ajax shows exactly same numbers and still tries to predict a winner. Is that a bug ?
Another reference to Ajax vs AJAX.
Bye Bye "AJAX", The Age of "Ajax" is Nigh - If AJAX is indeed an acronym (which it's not) then a comment on the article points out some others as:

AJACX: Asynchronous JavaScript, CSS and XMLHttpRequest

ADJACS: Asynchronous DOM, JavaScript and CSS

ADHJACS: Asynchronous DOM, HTML, JavaScript and CSS

AJACHS: Asynchronous JavaScript, HTML and CSS

AJACS: Asynchronous JavaScript, HTML and CSS

Dion's (Ajaxian co-founder) first prediction for 2007 is "Ajax beats AJAX in all but bad newspapers."

Here is a Google survey of some publishers of Ajax books. They all seem to be using "Ajax", not "AJAX".
Addison Wesley Professional
O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Manning Publications Co.
Apress, Inc.
Wrox (John Wiley & Sons, Inc)

Some of the common vendors use Ajax
IBM
HP
Oracle
BEA
Adobe

More

http://weblogs.java.net/blog/arungupta/archive/2007/04/ajax_vs_ajax_aj.html