how would we suggest improving the user experience at this SP

[Cantor, Scott]

On 6/4/14, 11:40 AM, "Peter Schober" <peter.schober at univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
>I'm not aware of anyone other than InCommon promoting errorURL on a
>larger scale (or at all), esp involving a federation-wide service. And
>AFAIR stats from InC were rather disappointing, both of IDPs
>populating that attribute and the percentagte of those where it was
>obviously broken (returning HTTP 404)? Maybe I remembered that wrong
>or the numbers are much better now.
>Not sure that qualifies as something others should try emulate?

I don't think anybody has a solution to emulate if you mean how it
actually works in practice. I'm saying more that I don't think anything
else is any better than errorURL, and all the bits are in place now to
make that work, so that leaves me without much else to suggest.

I will say IdPv3 needs to support an error template for this out of the
box and start generating a link to it in metadata, so that it's a fixed
URL that just shows up and at least doesn't 404.

I think it's reasonable to start using these criteria as a basis to decide
what IdPs to offer a choice of. No error URL, no choice.

Maybe what we need is to start talking less about assurance for users and
more about assurance for IdPs. We've talked about tagging IdPs with
various marks for best practices, but I really think we need a "package"
of practices to capture into a mark of some kind. But to do that, we have
to be able to monitor and respond to lapses too, and that's where this all
seems to fall apart.

And to bring this full circle, this is the kind of thing the REFEDS
category thread was about. IdPs that just want to be left alone and have
no interest in wider-scale federation.

-- Scott