On 29 Jun, 2006, at 08:53, Mimi Yin wrote:
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?
We certainly know the host name (e.g. "cosmo-demo.osafoundation.org")
and could display that. I'm not sure what you mean by "service name",
though.
--Grant
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
