Refeds


Subject RE: publisher interface study
From "Vries, Ale de (ELS-NYC)" <ale@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:37:17 -0400

Throwing in my belated $0.02 from the publisher's (or at least, my) perspective.

First of all, the interface study was very useful. It validated much of what we've done in our usability tests, of which we conducted numerous.  What our tests have shown is that consistent naming is very, very important - we try to consistently use "institutional login", but frankly, even that word tends to confuse people. There's simply not one single descriptive, "non-brand" word that makes users go "aha" for federated login. As a result, it has been suggested by our UI experts, too, that a brand would be useful.

Also, once could attribute the urgency of this issue to just the fact that Athens needs a replacement brand, but that in itself is also proof to me that apparently, branding of login methods works - even if the brand represents a narrow set of use cases (so I agree with Mikael when he says that a brand that doesn't work for all types and applications of federated access is "not a reason to leave the issues unsolved for academic users").

And I wouldn't worry too much about eduID sounding too "education-only". To some degree a name is just a name, and as long as what it stands for is good stuff, it'll fly (after all, "ipod" and "google" are kinda stupid words in themselves, right?)

(Although personally, I would've liked DigID, but that's already used by the Dutch government for their central login service...)

BUT, my overall concern is mostly with building a brand and integrating it into interfaces elegantly, no matter which brand one you choose. This needs to be consistently enforced by all involved, which I believe is no small feat.

For a non-internet example of a brand without an infrastructure: take frequent flyer-federations (SkyTeam, OneWorld). Every frequent flyer actually has an account with only one of the member airlines in a federation, and their shared infrastructure is pretty nonexistent (or at least fairly clunky). But I DO know that if I can't choose KLM, I try to choose Delta, Alitalia, or Malaysian, since at least that little Skyteam logo on their website tells me that somehow, in some very clunky way, I can transfer my miles from their program to KLM's...

Best - Ale

-----Original Message-----
From: Licia Florio [mailto:florio@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:03 AM
To: refeds@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [refeds] publisher interface study

Hi Mikael,

With a few days of delay...

I think you highlighted some of the interesting issues related to a
common branding. As far as TERENA is concerned, we could register the
name as we did with eduroam, if most of the people agree with this.
However verifying that the brand is not misused is a trickier thing, as
we experience with eduroam.

This item is now on the REFEDs agenda, so I guess we could discuss more
in Rome.

cheers,
Licia


> Hi,
> 
> The draft JISC publisher interface study is a good paper and raises
> 
> an issue that has been uncovered for (maybe too) long time.
> 
>  
> 
> As most of us, I’m wearing several hats and wondering which one to use…
> 
> Branding is an identified issue also in the GN3/eduGAIN policy work that
> I’m leading.
> 
> What will be the relationship of eduGAIN confederation and the eduID brand?
> 
>  
> 
> Bob> What advice is given to publishers to deal with their non-academic
> customers?
> 
>  
> 
> For sure, with eduID, this question remains open.
> 
> But IMHO it’s not a reason to leave the issues unsolved for academic users.
> 
>  
> 
> Bob>it seems to me the practical questions about how such a brand would
> 
> Bob>be used and administered are exactly the ones that make this
> proposal problematic.
> 
>  
> 
> Nicole> The 'we' is definitely REFEDS. 
> 
>  
> 
> If it’s OK to our non-European fellows that REFEDs (as an activity of
> 
> TERENA) manages the brand (i.e. decides how it can be used)?
> 
> I quess TERENA has done this already for eduroam.
> 
>  
> 
> Is TERENA secretariat willing to take the responsibility of
> 
> - registering the trademark (worldwide? Yes, it costs)
> 
> - watching that nobody isn’t misusing the trademark?
> 
>  
> 
> Nicole> I don't necessarily think that common brand, or at the very least
> 
> Nicole>'recognisable name' as I'm not sure we are sophisticated enough
> 
> Nicole>to be a brand (!) without common infrastructure is a problem. 
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with Nicole. In the ideal world, we would have both a common
> 
> brand and a common infrastructure, but that won’t happen in the near
> 
> future. Meanwhile, we could try to have at least a common brand before
> 
> it’s too late. The functionality after clicking the “eduID button” could
> 
> be (depending on the SP):
> 
> - either make it in two-steps (I know the JISC study doesn’t encourage this)
> 
>    1. Click eduID button
> 
>    2. Select your federation/confederation
> 
>    3. go to the federation WAYF
> 
> - or, there is an embedded WAYF in the SP, listing only available IdPs
> 
> from any (con)federations the SP is a member of.
> 
>  
> 
> mikael
> 


-- 
-----------------------------------
Licia Florio
TERENA Project Development Officer

TERENA Secretariat
Singel 468 D, 1017 AW Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T: +31 20 530 44 88
------------------------------------

Elsevier B.V. Registered Office: Radarweg 29, 1043 NX Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Registration No. 33156677 (The Netherlands)