Consent Wording

[Cantor, Scott]

On 11/19/14, 10:07 PM, "NAKAMURA Motonori" <motonori at nii.ac.jp> wrote:


>
>I see. I thought a user is required to close the browser "to abort the
>login" to get somewhat good effect, otherwise it may be no use to say
>(in my personal feeling).

That's what I was trying to say, the outcome here is not supposed to be 
the user closing the browser, they should be able to abort the login and 
end up some place the deployer can control and it can say whatever they'd 
like it to say. It shouldn't trap the user on the consent page or force 
them to shut down. So we don't need to really come up with the wording for 
the message there, I'd just get rid of that message in favor of an 
explanation of what pressing the button will do.

Initially I was thinking that it would somehow translate into recording a 
No decision, but I think that's probably wrong. I think it should just 
abort the transaction, audit something, not record a decision at all, and 
land somewhere that can say whatever people would like it to say.

>Yes, I know mechanism is provided. My question is resources itself
>(translations). It may be happy for admins to share resources on
>translations in a centralized way. If there is no plan, such resources
>should be offered by each language region as usual.

Got it, I misunderstood you. We can discuss, it hasn't really come up yet. 
I don't know what other projects do. I know some obviously include 
translated files in the software packages, but I don't know how they keep 
that up to date. Of course we can host translations in some unofficial 
way, but we probably could do that with just the wiki if nothing else.

>Former version of IdP offers just a login page which gives words
>"username" and "password" simply, and these words can be understood by
>almost users. So translation support was not so important.

Well, I assume somebody might want to translate other pages too, I don't 
know. We just never had a way of really supporting that before.

-- Scott