Betsy Gunia (Dec 18 2025 at 14:34): Betsy Gunia (Dec 18 2025 at 14:34):Hello,
At Johns Hopkins University, we are likely going to be permitting restricted files in our Repository in the coming year. Thus far, we only accept data that can be open. We've been going to various compliance offices at our institution and getting feedback on our proposed workflow.
One outcome of these discussions lead to a desire by some stakeholders to have the "Terms of Access for Restricted Files" automatically download as a text file when someone downloads the associated restricted file. The concern was that the pop-up box in the UI where you accept the terms is hard to read and therefore likely overlooked by the downloader.
I couldn't find an existing ticket for this exact issue, though I found a related feature request https://github.com/IQSS/dataverse/issues/11459.
If this is something that others would see as value to the community, I am happy to proceed with making a formal feature request in GitHub.
Thanks,
Betsy
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 14:37):I believe you're right that there is no such issue. Please do create one!
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 14:38):What would the user experience be when downloading a single restricted file? Would the user get a zip with two files, the restricted file and a text file with the terms?
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 14:38):My concern with this is that it would interfere with direct download from S3.
Betsy Gunia (Dec 18 2025 at 15:21):Yes, I was envisioning a zip, but if there is another way to accomplish this, than that is fine too.
At the heart of the issue was the concern that the data downloaders wouldn't take the time to actually review the lengthy terms. The assumption being people are too lazy to use the scroll bar to review it all :upside_down:. So, perhaps using some CSS magic could solve this problem without the requirement of having the license text automatically download?
It isn't a complete showstopper for our compliance offices. It was more of "we would feel more comfortable" situation . I should state that we are proposing to deposit low sensitivity data, not the kind of data that contains identifying information and requires the signing of official data use agreements. We are trying to keep the process as automated as possible.
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 15:22):The need is absolutely clear. I'm just trying to think through the details. :smile:
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 15:23):Would it help to give them a button to download the terms from the popup? Or would they not bother to download them? :thinking:
Betsy Gunia (Dec 18 2025 at 15:37):Good question as to whether people would download the terms from the popup. My guess is most wouldn't bother unless there was obvious language around the button telling them they had to download per our institution's policy or something to that effect. I can float this idea to others on my team and get their 2 cents.
If there was a way to make it easier to read a lengthy "terms of access for restricted files" that might be fine as well.
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 15:40):All good questions. Let me ping @Julian Gautier as well, who works on UX.
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 15:46):@Betsy Gunia I'd say you could go ahead and create the issue at least. To me it sounds like the problem is that people are reading the Terms of Access for Restricted Files. Is that right? Or at least we suspect they aren't reading them and we'd like to do something, perhaps multiple things, to increase the likelihood that they read them.
Betsy Gunia (Dec 18 2025 at 15:51):Exactly. The concern is that people are not going to read the Terms of Access for Restricted Files. Compliance folks like it when you do everything in your power to reduce the likelihood of negative behavior :-)
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 15:52):Maybe there should be a quiz at the end. :smile:
Julian Gautier (Dec 18 2025 at 15:55):Hi @Betsy Gunia. Would you happen to have a screenshot of the popup box that we could see? I think I know what you're referring to but would like to confirm :)
Julian Gautier (Dec 18 2025 at 15:58):Or of course I could check out the GitHub issue if you plan to open one and could post a screenshot there
Betsy Gunia (Dec 18 2025 at 15:58):Makes sense to make sure we are on the same page!
image.png
FYI, I inserted QDRs language. It is next on my list to write language for our own repository.
Betsy Gunia (Dec 18 2025 at 15:58):I will likely make a GitHub issue, but I want to talk to my colleagues first. Some of them are already out for the holidays.
Philip Durbin 🚀 (Dec 18 2025 at 15:58):That box to scroll through is tiny. :magnifying_glass:
Julian Gautier (Dec 18 2025 at 16:00):Ah yeah. I remember bringing this up as a concern when we were working on the multiple license feature, too. We punted on the conversation, I think because this is a common convention, though I agree it's an unfortunate one. At the time we might've even half joked that addressing this wouldn't matter much since people don't read these things anyway, even when it's easier to read :sweat_smile:
But I'm glad it's come up again!
Last updated: Jan 09 2026 at 14:18 UTC