It seems like if the user re-names an account, it would be to change it to something that is more meaningful to them. For example, OOTB, we might call the Cosmo Sharing account: Cosmo Sharing Service. However, an user who is told to share via Cosmo Sharing because their office has decided to adopt the Chandler Ecosystem might associate that account more with their job, than with the OSAF server Cosmo. As a result, they may change the name of the account to: Work Sharing. Either way, the account name is the user's way of identifying the server/service that is being used to share the collection. The server/service that is being used to share the collection is simply part of the profile of the share and in some situations it is a helpful piece of information to have when managing a shared collection. Otherwise, it's like looking at your Outbox in your email client and only being able to see the Title of the email, but not being able to see which account you sent the email from. Most of the time, it doesn't matter, but once in a while, it does. That being said, Priscilla's original observation is spot on. There are better and worse ways to communicate the concept of the sharing server/service. Changing the OOTB name of the Sharing account from 'Sharing' to 'Cosmo Sharing Service' would be a first step. Changing the name of the field from 'Sharing account' to 'Shared via' would be a second. WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS CONFUSING: Collection name: My calendar Sharing account: Sharing PROPOSED CHANGE: Collection name: My calendar Shared via: Cosmo Sharing Service (or whatever we call the service in the future) Q. Can we figure out the server or service name for subscribers as well? Mimi On Jun 28, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Priscilla Chung wrote: Please see my notes inline: |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
