On Jun 11, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: > *...@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?
Extended is much better IMO since this means rights in addition to the standard ones and has no notion of advanced or not. Thanks -Vincent > > Thanks everybody for your feedback - keep it coming :p > Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
