*...@roman* > by default rights table lists all groups available in the system >
The presented use case adds user "evalica" at Space level, on top on standard (rights that come with a fresh installed XWiki) Wiki level groups. That's why those groups are presented. I should have stated this. was there an aim to allow displaying ALL of the rights that are applied to > ALL users/groups at current moment. And in particular what if user is not > assigned to any group, where do the rights come from? > as Denis said "Registered Users" covers this case. And yes, it's a special case that could get protected from deletion. *...@denis * > Regarding the yellow background, I think that their should be two different > colors: one for the row background on hover and one for the background of > what has been changed without being saved. > We need this especially when we hover the row and this information disappears. We should talk about this and see if we want to add a new color to the ColorTheme. I know there was also a talk about "Hightlight applied filters in livetable" http://markmail.org/message/5maylva3vjgre66c . We could add $theme.selectedColor additional to $theme.highlightColor. *...@vincent * > Why does it say on Rights51Space for the view right that "Allowed only for > evalica" when view right is also allowed for all users in the Admin group? > The main disadvantage of this proposal is the icon contrast. I used icons from Silk and gray them out, but still there is not enough. We need to think on a way to improve this. So, in basic mode, icons have an inherited and overridden (locally set) state. You can see them at http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/RightsProposal/icons.png[first two row are inherited (allow/deny), the next rows are locally set (allow/deny) ]. Except "edit" and "delete", the other rights get lost in contrast. So, if you look closely, you will see that "evalica" has the "view" right locally allowed, while "XWikiAdminGroup" has the right inherited (from Wiki level, so it doesn't affect other rights at Space level; plus is an "implicit" rights - comes from allowed "admin"). You can observe this setting of rights, if you look also in the menu http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/RightsProposal/rightClickValues.png The problem with the phrase "Allowed only for evalica" is that maybe it should be "Allowed locally only for evalica". Also this could have scaling problems (if you allow it locally for multiple users). The advantage of the phrase is that if you have a problem with this right (the right is denied), you are informed who is the cause. Also the word "allowed" can be perceived as a call to action, letting the user know that he needs to allow the right in order to fix it. Like Denis suggested "Overwritten by local allowance" we could find another phrase, maybe less technical. Why does that second column says "Users"? Shouldn't it be "Users and > Groups"? > I'll change that. Why does the extended rights view is called "advanced"? > the programming right itself could be considered advanced while a new right > such as "ability to post messages in a forum" would be a basic right > The separation between basic and advanced rights was done trying to separate mandatory rights that cover the majority of XWiki functionality from rights that the user can rely on their default value. "programming" or any other application right IMO is not vital for a "basic" administrator. We can change "advanced" with "extended". WDYT? Thanks everybody for your feedback - keep it coming :p Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
