I have a simple criterion for 'business ready': how much would I pay for this application out of my own pocket? If it's not worth my buying it, it's not worth designing into any product regardless of who's signing the check.
This is about customer-friendly usability, not security. It's just plain rude to offer a selection that only gets the user's hand slapped. And on a flinty-eyed level, you don't want people pestering you about why they're locked out of that selection. If I can't do it, don't let me see it. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353 Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 12:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: zOSMF - remove plug-in Isn't that just "security by obscurity"? Or invisibility? What business harm is there in revealing that a function exists as long as the security rules prevent unauthorized use? Or is it just to keep the naive unauthorized screen user from "confusion"? What exactly is meant by a "business ready" approach to user interfaces? Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 3:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: zOSMF - remove plug-in I'm a bystander on this issue at the moment, but I do have strong feelings about appearing to give the user an option that, when selected, gets 'not allowed'. If an option is not allowed, it should not be displayed. I realize that this complicates programming, but it's the 'business ready' approach to any user interface on any platform. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
