Hi, Thomas.
I know that I'm not Doug, but I have a question about this. If the fields are intended to be hidden from the group that the user is a member of, hence the moving to the alternate view, but should still be visible to you, would it be better to alter the permissions for the fields to where your group and any other applicable groups have view/change access and the group(s) that the other users are in are not listed in the fields' access list? I would think that having a Set Focus action on the field would intend that at least someone would have access to the field. I may just be misunderstanding the intent. The reason I had originally asked the question was because on one of our forms that we've carried along and updated, I found some fields that were explicitly hidden, some that were in a page holder with access restrictions via permissions. I found out later that the capability to create a field that didn't exist in any view didn't come along until some version after ARS 7.1. Basically all of the fields that are in the page holder that only administrators have access to could really be converted to fields in no view since they are solely used for workflow. Thanks! --Dustin Fawver Help Desk Technician Information Technology Services East Tennessee State University ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) <[email protected]> on behalf of Thomas Miskiewicz <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 6:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ARS 9.1: Question about hiding fields ** Hi Doug, you said: "As has been noted this is NOT security, the *field is still fully accessible to the user* it is just not possible to show it on the screen from the mid-tier." We got a form with views. We moved all hidden fields to the other view in order to hide the temp fields from the Advanced Search field selection for the user. This however broke some workflow which was doing a Set Focus on fields that are not in the other view. I know, doind a set Focus on the hidden field is WIRED, but fully accessible is fully accessible. Is this a bug or what kind of full accessibility did you have in mind saying that even fields that are in neither view are fully accessible to the user? Thomas On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Mueller, Doug <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ** Dustin, A field that is “not in view” has multiple advantages: 1) It is not in Field list dropdowns as noted so it is “more hidden” than other fields 2) It has no view properties so it in fact is more efficient. There is no screen widgetry defined, there is less html in the page (think about it, if it is just hidden, it COULD be made visible so you have to define the widget, have html that describes it and positions it and cares for it and …. While if not in view it is NEVER possible to show it so there is no view definition at all. It is lighter and if you have many of them, it does have a notable impact on the volume of html in the screen so it is more efficient) As has been noted this is NOT security, the field is still fully accessible to the user it is just not possible to show it on the screen from the mid-tier. You can reference it through workflow and work with it programmatically like any other field. If you don’t want the user to have access, control with PERMISSIONS not with hiding or making not in view. As a general suggestion, if a field is NEVER visible on the screen, I strongly suggest you have it not in view. It reduces overhead and makes the system more efficient. Only have things in view that have the possibility of being displayed under some condition. Doug Mueller From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Brittain, Mark Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 12:23 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: ARS 9.1: Question about hiding fields ** Dustin, A field that is not in the view does not appear in the Field menu for an Advanced Search. So this might be a good way to limit what users are searching on. Of course if you have a savy user they can always type the field name with quotes (e.g. ‘Wigit Name’) but I haven’t found anyone who does that. Mark From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 3:02 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: ARS 9.1: Question about hiding fields ** Dustin, The main advantage is the fact that the field isn't taking up any screen real estate anywhere on the form. The object still exists on the form, is still transferred to the client, so it's not a transport advantage, but the fact that the field's not cluttering up the display is a maintenance advantage :) On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Fawver, Dustin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ** Greetings! During my analysis of workflow for the migration to ARS 9.1, I have found that fields can be hidden in several ways. - Hidden explicitly by the field's properties - Placed in a panel page that the user doesn't not have permissions to. - Removed from the user's view - The field not being placed in any view I found some fields being referenced in workflow that existed on the form but that weren't in any views. Are there any advantages or disadvantages to having a field that's not present in any view versus a field that is simply hidden? Thanks for your input. --Dustin Fawver HelpDesk Technician Information Technology Services East Tennessee State University [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
