0

We have a web app where an admin can invite and revoke access for users. After which, the user cannot log in, but history/activity from them will still be shown. So we're not removing the user entirely (just their ability to log in).

We have a button that reads Revoke Access for the admin to do so. After that, next to the name with revoked privileges, we have Access Revoked written.

Is there a kinder/gentler way to write Revoke Access and Access Revoked?

Update: I considered No longer registered and Account no longer exists I may go with one of those and keep it at Revoke Access.

  • Why do you want a "kinder/gentler way" to communicate this? No longer registered and Account no longer exists are also wrong in this context, because the user does still exist, they have simply had their access revoked. I think Access revoked is clear and unambiguous. – msanford Apr 16 '18 at 17:40
  • Ok, think about it from someone coming across their history - if I read it is as “Access Revoked,” the connotation is that the user did something wrong or perhaps harmful. In reality, it could be an amicable split (and the vast majority of the time would be so). – bphilipnyc Apr 16 '18 at 22:04
  • The app is also centered around kindness. – bphilipnyc Apr 16 '18 at 22:10
3

If you're looking for something gentler, why not Archive User (or Account) and User Archived? I think it's generally understood that Archived means not active but able to be looked up for reference purposes (although I don't know if everyone will understand it that way in your situation, you'll be the judge of that).

If that's not clear enough... the effect of pressing the button is that the account no longer has permission to log in. Or put another way, the account is permanently disabled. Those are ways you could describe this - Disable Account or Remove Access.

  • The Archive User text might work for other applications, so it sounds like a good suggestion. However, we actually have another area of the site specifically called an Archive and adding this would create confusion in our particular case. Remove Access sounds good. We’re not planning to “Re-Enable” accounts, so I like Account Disabled or Disable Account a little less. Personal preference though. – bphilipnyc Apr 16 '18 at 22:07
  • Ah yes, sounds like archive would be a confusing verb in your case! – tobybot Apr 18 '18 at 16:09
0

Edit: So it’s not temporary, it’s for a history log only and archive is ambiguous in your context. In other words it is a Historic Account from an Unbound User.

Since the account still exists, it is the the status of the account that matters:

  • Unbind user
  • Unbound user

If you prefer to think in terms of users. Than the status of the user would be:

  • Unbind account
  • Unbound account

It sounds more like an agreement with the user and in that way bit more kind.

Previous answer: The general term for unallowed access is "access denied". But if you need a more gentle way of putting it you can use "on hold".

  • 1
    "On hold" implies that it's temporary. It's not temporary. Thanks for the input though. – bphilipnyc Apr 16 '18 at 16:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.