Hi Randy, if I understand you correctly, I would rule out #5 from an
user experience perspective just because it will be really hard to
explain that to the user. Also, given that sharing is the only way to
get your data from one machine to another, many users will have all
of their collections on the server, even if just to share with
themselves.
Mimi
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Randy Letness wrote:
Mimi Yin wrote:
*So...What are our options?*
*1. Rel note this and live with it for Preview.*
*2. Ideal from the design perspective: Per-item access controls.*
Batsheva should never be allowed to edit the Item 'Danger, Will
Robinson' no matter what other collections she adds it to.
*3. Segregate the item soup by account. *This means that
Batsheva's changes to 'Lunch with Nero' will reach Nebuchadnezzar,
*only* if Nebuchadnezzar subscribes to 'Batsheva's Collection' as
well.
*4. No item soup on Chandler Hub.*
Morgen, Randy, Bobby? Is this accurate?
One more option:
5. Only allow the owner of an item to add it to share the item to
multiple collections. This means Batsheva can add 'Lunch with
Nero' to a local collection, but can't share that item to another
collection. This prevents Batsheva from getting write access to
'Lunch with Nero'. The owner of a shared item is essentially the
owner of the collection.
-Randy
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
