confusing mesage about "not recognized by the Launchpad login service"

Would "site which is not operated by Canonical" be easier to understand?

Yes, that would be perfect.

I would say something like:

"Do you want to log in to **stackoverflow.com** using your Ubuntu ID?
This site is not operated by Canonical."

That puts the important question first and the (moderately important)
caution in the first paragraph.

--
Martin

I think I'd rather just drop the "not recognised by" or "not operated by" entirely. We have 3 levels of site:

 1. Owned and operated by Canonical - usually auto-redirects so the user won't even see the confirmation page
 2. Official community site, considered 'trusted' and has a human-readable name
 3. Unknown sites which present the message this bug is discussing.

For #2, we currently say:

"Sign in
If you proceed, the following information will be available to LoCo Team Directory:
...
[Yes, sign me in] or cancel"

and for #3, we currently say:

"You have used your Single Sign On ID to access a site which is not recognised by Launchpad Login Service:
{url}
If you proceed, the following information will be available to the website:
...
[Yes, sign me in] or cancel"

I think I'd rather just standardise the message (hopefully making it less alarming/confusing) to something like:

"Sign in to {trusted-name or url}?
This site has requested additional information about you. Please choose what you want to share:
...
[Yes, sign me in] or cancel"

This is similar to other openid providers such as myopenid.com

On 14 March 2012 23:55, Stuart Metcalfe <email address hidden> wrote:
> "Sign in to {trusted-name or url}?
> This site has requested additional information about you.  Please choose what you want to share:
> ...
> [Yes, sign me in] or cancel"
>
> This is similar to other openid providers such as myopenid.com

+1, though perhaps we can improve on the slightly vague "has requested
additional information about you". Even just dropping that sentence
and saying "Please choose what you want to share" could be good.

--
Martin

That sounds good. I think we have enough to proceed with this fix. Thanks for your thoughts and feedback, everyone