Replies: 1 comment
-
|
The only reason I declined it is that right now, there's only one button on the page when OIDC is set up, and as you said, the text is meaningless when there's only one button on the page. I'm not strongly opposed to cosmetic changes like this, but I do have to be mindful of the complexity of the configuration file, and to me, this specific case is not really a deal breaker for anybody, and as I mentioned, if support for multiple OIDC providers is added in the future, this would require a breaking change (because the button text would need to be per provider as opposed to globally). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
In the recent discussion regarding login page branding (which is now implemented), the last item was rejected:
From a UX perspective, in my organization, users are very used to see branding for login buttons: "Log in via ECorp Auth". For many of them, "OIDC", "Keycloak" or whatever the label says is meaningless. They will hit the only button on the login screen, of course, but having "ECorp" in there might make them a bit less weary of falling into some phising trap.
I'd also argue that making the label configurable is pretty standard on webapps implementing native OIDC support.
Would you accept a PR for this?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions