On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:39:22 PM UTC-4, Stefan Lodders wrote: > > Hi Roberto, > > Google Groups sent my first attempt to reply to Nirvana. :( > > The message made it in my mailbox but not to the Group, strange :/
> Thank you for your detailed answers. > > I apologize for my English. It is not enough to be diplomatic. No insult > intended at anytime. > > No worries I understood your context, no insult taken :) English is not my first language either so I worry sometimes about how I'm saying what I mean too :) > Am Donnerstag, 20. September 2012 08:56:30 UTC+2 schrieb Roberto Rosario: >> >> >> The main layout for every view is: main menu on top, secondary toolbar >> and actions for the currently selected object in the top of the sidebar at >> the right side and alternative actions at the bottom of the sidebar. To >> upload a new version of a document, select a previously uploaded document, >> go to the versions tab and on the bottom of the right sidebar there should >> be an "upload new document version" menu entry. Yes the documentation on >> that feature is a little vague. Since it takes time away from doing >> support and writing code, what I usually do is take a few days prior to >> the release of a new version to work on the documentation, if something >> didn't make the cut it is usually added in the next release. >> > > I found the option just minutes before my presentation about Mayan, on my > 1900x1200px monitor at home the link had always been below the right bottom > of the screen. > The current HTML framework being used is elastic but not responsive so some items get hidden on some monitor aspect ratios. A move to HTML5 and Twitter's bootstrap is being considered. > >> To see if I understood correctly: Provide a PDF version of the uploaded >> .docx document if the user doesn't has editing permissions? >> > > Correct. As a comfortable alternative to do this manually. > > > This can be done using the ACL (access control list) feature, where you >> can restrict what actions any user can do to any specific document. You >> can even set the default ACL to assign upon document creation (which >> permissions to assign to the creator of the document, or any other specific >> user, group of users, or role) >> > > The Mayan's rights management is as powerful as complex. For managing it > "en passant" it seems a litle too complex, e.g. providing 5 or more sites > of acl, roles and group options. > > I'll see what can be done about adding some predefined common use roles with certain ACLs by default: Supervisor, Reviewer, etc that loosely fit as many use cases as possible. > >> This would require a rule base system that automatically assigns tags to >> document based on programmatic criteria set by de admin (kind of like the >> smart link or the indexes). Something similar to this is in the TO DO list >> for the next mayor version, but is not even designed yet. >> > > To me it looks like a very important feature to give the tags not just a > .png, but a meaning so you can search for all new documents, for all > awaiting review and so on... > > You can already search document by tags only, but this feature would be about giving tags intelligence so they can attach themselves automatically to documents based on the document's state, correct? > >> This sort of functionality is better handled by a workflow engine like >> the one being developed for Mayan, that changes the document properties and >> access control list based on the used defined states of a document >> (uploaded, approved, rejected). This functionality passed the design >> phase and there is some model code but it is slated for the next mayor >> release. >> > > A dms always has a context in which the documents are embedded, so some > rudimentary workflow managment (and "check out" certainly is a beginning) > is necessary. > A workflow engine is one of the most requested features. Most of all the internal updates being made are to accommodate the steep requirements of the workflow engine (document states, dynamic ACL based on state, dynamic icons, scheduling for expired workflow tasks, multi-tenant support, trash bin support, among many others) > > >> >> This sounds like a dashboard. Removal of the current static home page >> showing the pyramid logo to replace it with a dashboard is already under >> way ( >> https://github.com/rosarior/mayan/blob/development/docs/releases/0.13.rst), >> but for inclusion on the next mayor version. >> > > Exactly. Without one you will be lost in a jungle of documents with no > clue about there status, importance etc. > > >> Reading confirmations like email reading confirmations? >> > > Yes. So you can monitor if a new employee has read (not understood) the > essential documents e.g. to start working in an ambulance. Or who has not > read an important note about misproduced drugs. > > This is something not usually associated with DMS software but sounds very interesting and very useful. The main issue is getting 'feedback' about a document from users, so I would do it a bit more generic and allow the creation of simple forms for input about a specific type of document. The form could be then crafted by supervisor to be as simple as a checkbox with "I have read the document" to also contain several checkboxes and textfields: [] I have read the document, [] I agree, [] I do not agree, explaing why: _________. With a result page detailing each user response for any given document type. The main difficulty is rendering the dynamic form, aside from that all other things to support this don't appear to be too difficult. > >> Getting certified is not a big priority for the project at this time (at >> least for me personally) because of well, personal reasons. Having tried >> to get previous software certified taught me that some (if not all) >> certification processes are either scams to get money and provide a false >> sense of elitism for the company whose software get certified selectively >> or are poorly defined that the required implementation for compliance are >> very open to individual interpretation (for example check HIPAA in >> regards to record privacy) or cannot be effectively implemented. Either >> way they all lead down the same path: a disproportional amount of money and >> time spent trying to get certified and an a selective situation where >> only a specific group of software gets certified and allowed in certain >> industries, even if these lack in terms of technical quality. >> > > I would NEVER recommend anyone to certify. But in many branches you are > forced more or less to certify your unit to stay in the market. So a DMS > should support such needs, e.g. demanded in EN ISO 9oo1. > > Certification is not a top priority, but moving the project to have a feature set like those required by the different certifications is a priority. The idea is to lower the barrier when and if a certification effort is made. Document versioning is one example of this. > > Stefan > Thanks a lot for all your input! --Robert --
