Hi Caty, On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 18:09, Ecaterina Valica <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Denis, > > I want to thank you again for all the help you are giving :P > This is pleasure to participate especially because you provide really good proposals. I would also like to see others participating, currently the discussion is becoming to much bilateral IMO. > > Please take a look at a proposal for "V3 and my 3)" version with elements > from Rights2 :) > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal > and in "action" > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Space Really nice job ! I really appreciate. > The prototype is not reflecting the "desired" interaction: both inherited > info and rights change appear on hover (right icon and arrow), instead of > hover | click. > I am not sure what are really your intend. I think that the big tooltips describing the rights should be the only tooltips, and should be show on hover only after a small timeout (like the yellow one currently). Clicking any where on the +/- icon or v would then open the menu. Is it what you try ? > > That "v" needs to be an arrow like the one we use in the action menus. > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 19:06, Denis Gervalle <d...@softec.lu> wrote: > > > Caty, > > > > Really nice and interesting post, I will try to reach that level... but > > without visual :\ > > > > I really think that using the collapsed view for editing would helps > basic > > users to have a simplified and more easy interface to understand. We may > > even imagine that only "advanced user" (those marked so in their > profile), > > has access to the expanded view. > > > > I think that the collapsed view missed an additional icon that summarize > > the > > rights that are not shown. This one would only be shown if there is any > > non-defaulted additional right in action. > > This is a signal that extended > > rights are in use (See it like the grey box of Windows when special > rights > > are setup, which is inviting to go into advanced view to know more). This > > one would be obviously not editable, and should probably work like the > ... > > or replace it ? In place of the ... . Concerning the ..., I am not sure, > > but > > I would also prefer to see a textual link "advanced" in small font, and > > only > > visible when row is hovered. > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal#HRowhover Sorry to insist, but the information regarding the advanced rights is still missing in collapsed mode. I really would like to have a indicator that some advanced rights has been set locally or not without having to go advanced mode. Else, you will have to expand all rows to check that information, which is not practical. > > > > Order of right are not significant, so I would prefer that in all view, > > these where in the same order, with the basic right first (V/C/E/D/A/P) > and > > the additional right in their order of registration (hope that it will > stay > > constant... or we will have to find a way to keep them ordered). > > The "right" part of each icon should be grayed if the right is inherited > > and > > not grayed if the right is set locally, this improve the information > > provided in V3. > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal#HAfterclick > > The problem with this icons (taken from Silk) is that there is little > difference for View, Comment, Admin icons between the two states > (inherited, > locally set) - but this is something we can easily improve (by changing the > icons and looking for some more contrast). > Example: This is how they look when all rights are set locally (full color) > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights43Proposal/fullColors.png > > > > > I also think that the +/- (which is never grayed) could be > > nearer to the right icon. Maybe you could use a green V and a read "stop" > > in > > place of +/- ? > > > > The other mockup versions (like > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Space) > used > v/x for the allow/deny representation, and yes, I agree that they are more > suited than +/-. > > The problem is that we are using in XWiki, X to represent delete, so having > two xX was too much, that's why I introduced +/-. Maybe we can find another > solution. > I think we need some polishing on the icons used. Building them specifically would be nice, but I do not know if you or anyone want to have a try at that. My feeling is that the couple +/- or better v/x and the right icon should be built together and closer to each other providing the information as a whole and not giving the impression of two part. Using a v for suggesting the menu is nice, could be even improved by styling some "button like" borders on hover. All menus could also be improved by using the inheritance arrow married with +/- (or v/x) to show immediately what will be the right if inheritance is used. > > > > > > Regarding the collapsed view, I see three possibilities to investigate > for > > allowing edition while improving readability (note that readability has > the > > same issue in expanded view, but it seems to be less annoying) : > > > > 1) use V3, but when hovering a row, use V2 on that row and allow > drag/drop > > (keeping V2 until drop even is hover is temporary lost). Not sure this > will > > be nice in practice ? see 2) > > > > 2) use a presentation in 4 columns, for both collapsed and expanded view, > > the first column behing a read-only summary like V3, and the 3 column > being > > an ordered V1. However, dragging from summary would be allowed. The 3 > > detailed column could be shown only when a drag is started from summary, > or > > with a global horizontal expansion button... Basic user would have access > > to > > this, but not necessarily to vertical row expansion. Not sure this is not > > an > > increase in complexity ? so, see 3) > > > > 3) use V3, and a similar interface to what we have in current right > > management interface. Since saved are postponed (not like we have > > currently), using this one may be both practical and could helps the > > transition for existing user as well. With all the belts and whistle > added > > to clearly state changes and inheritance, this will be similar but really > > better than what we have. > > > > If we go for V3 and my 3) proposal, I also wonder if the current table > > header is well done. I do not like it when nothing is expanded since it > is > > confusing, too large, and not significant. It will be even more > unexpected > > if you follow me on the "advance user" case, when a basic user look at > it. > > Maybe you could try a changing header, only expanding when there is > > expanded > > row, or, you could move the expanded header in each expanded row, keeping > a > > simplified header at the top. > > > > WDYT ? > > > > Denis > > > > > Other problem that this proposal has is the representation of "advanced > rights". If we don't like the textual description and we want to add icons, > IMO we have two solutions: > > A) use the same abstract icon, but with different color, ex. a key or lock > icon with color representation ("blue" for "programming", "green" for > "captchaComment", etc) > - the problem here is for the people that have some kind color blindness > and > will not distinguish between some color tones (this is the case when we > gonna have lots of "advanced" | non default rights) > > B) use the same abstract icon and with an order index (like numbers 1, 2, > etc or characters A, B, etc) > > These representations are based on the fact that "advanced rights" will be > added by other developers and the icon will not be custom made for a specif > right. > Why not just use the big Icons from the menu (using the inheritance arrow married with +/- as proposed above), and directly followed by the v arrow. All this in front of the text ? Using a generic icon will not improve information and detailed view of advanced right in collapsed mode is not expected. It is not clearly shown on your samples, how multiple advance right would be shown. I think one per row is nice, or if you want to limit space, 2 or 3 at most, shown in columns ? I also wonder is this would help or not to also extends basic rights in advanced mode, showing the icons and the text ? > > Another thing we need to consider for this proposal is how the filtering is > gonna be made. > Good point. Here is some proposal for each column: 1) a dropdown list proposing local (default), global or both ? 2) a textbox which filter on names 3) a dropdown list proposing all (default), hide inherited only, and maybe the list of rights, showing only rows where the selected right is set locally ? WDYT ? Denis > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:54, Ecaterina Valica <vali...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:03, Denis Gervalle <d...@softec.lu> wrote: > > > > > > > Caty, > > > > > > > > I probably have an issue with my browser (Chrome/Mac) but I cannot > see > > > the > > > > icons :( > > > > > > > > > > Fixed: thanks. > > > > > > Made some screenshots with how it suppose to look like: > > > - Wiki: > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wiki42View.png > > > - Space: > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/space42View.png > > > > > > > > > > Anyway this seem to me nice, but I am not sure you should prevent > > > changing > > > > rights in summary mode. I think that summary mode should allow simple > > > right > > > > management, and for 'casual' or less knowledgeable users, this should > > be > > > > the > > > > only mode used. This is not only a summary, but also a simplified > > > > interface. > > > > > > > > WDYT ? > > > > > > > > > > I had your vision (changing rights in summary mode) in mind when I > > started > > > prototyping. Let me show you some versions: > > > > > > V1_space) First version took the exact order from the extended view > > (first > > > Allow, second Deny rights) > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/spaceTest1.png > > > > > > + this version lets the user drag its right to the appropriate column > > > +- has the same representation as the extended version > > > --- there is no scanability: if I want to see the status of "delete" > > right > > > for different groups/users I have to search for them (making me dizzy > :P > > ) > > > + there is no gapping space between rights > > > > > > V2_space) Tried to fix the dizziness by providing same order/position > for > > > rights > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/spaceTest2.png > > > +- this version lets the user drag its right to the appropriate > column, > > > but the user has not control over the position he choose to drop the > > > target: > > > the right will appear on the column it's suppose to be > > > +- doesn't have the same representation as the extended version > > > (allowed/denied order broke, determined order present) > > > + scanability: it's easy to scan for the searched column/position > > > - gap space between rights: ex. evalica-DenyDelete: some users might > > not > > > like that gap and may not understand why is there (is it a bug?) > > > > > > See also: > > > V2_wiki) > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest2.png > > > V2_wiki_expanded) > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest21.png > > > > > > As you see in V2) has the same functionality as the expanded version. > > > The main benefit is that is occupying less space, but we still need the > > > expanded view for the Inherited/detailed information for each right. > > > > > > The down side of version 2 > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest2.png > > > is that if I want to *summarize *a global state for a given right (ex > see > > > for what users 'delete' is allowed/denied) at a global level, not at a > > > group/user level, the same dizziness effect appears (I have to search > for > > > 'delete' right in three columns, for all the users) > > > > > > V3) is the current proposal, it compresses the 3 column spread > > information > > > in one view. > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/space42View.png > > > - this version doesn't lets the user drag its right to the > appropriate > > > column > > > +- doesn't have the same representation as the extended version > > > + scanability: it's easy to scan for the searched column/position at > a > > * > > > global* level > > > + there is no gapping space between rights > > > > > > V3_wiki) > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest3.png > > > is equivalent to > > > V2_wiki) > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest2.png > > > > > > I prefer V3) over V2): > > > + Summary does what is suppose to: give a global summary of existing > > > rights, without being concerned of the type of the right (inherited, > > > locally > > > allowed, locally denied) > > > + Good Readability > > > +/- Doesn't allow rights to be dragged around. I prefer changing rights > > in > > > expanded mode because there you also have more information, like source > > of > > > the inheritance + 3 columns. > > > > > > Being compact it's easier to understand the "local source of > inheritance" > > > for a given right. For example, allowing "view" right for 'evalica' > will > > > deny it for 'unregistered users' and 'registered users'. Being on the > > same > > > column is easier to look for the change and see it in action (being > > > highlighted). > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/space42View.png > > > > > > Please tell me what you think about this rationale. It would be great > if > > > you > > > have ideas about how to make the summary being draggable, but also > > keeping > > > scanability and less gaps. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Caty > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 16:54, Ecaterina Valica <vali...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica <vali...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary Icons for standard rights: > > > > > > > > > > > > *Space Level:* > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights42Space > > > > > > *Wiki Level*: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry: link for Wiki is > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights42Wiki > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bug: > > > > > > - when clicking on "more" next to the summary, all columns should > > > > expand, > > > > > > not just one column at a time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Missing: > > > > > > - expand/collapse all + pagination, etc > > > > > > > > > > > > Remarks: > > > > > > - Summary view is good for quick scanning of the rights. Rights > > > > > management > > > > > > (changing) and inheritance explanations are available in expanded > > > view. > > > > > > - Icons presented just for: view, comment, edit, delete, admin, > > > > register, > > > > > > programming. Extended rights|Expand mode are represented by "..." > > > > (more) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Caty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26, Denis Gervalle <d...@softec.lu> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica < > > vali...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi, > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I want to talk a bit about: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > The inheritance is a little bit particular, since allowing a > > > given > > > > > >> right > > > > > >> > at > > > > > >> > > lower level, will deny that same right for anybody else even > > if > > > > this > > > > > >> > right > > > > > >> > > is allowed at a higher level. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I want to know how hard this would be to be changed. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Changing this is not hard, but it will increase complexity since > > we > > > > will > > > > > >> need a backward compatibility mode for existing wikis. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Another question is why this has been done in the first place? > > Can > > > > > >> someone > > > > > >> > give a valid use case when this is more productive than other > > > ways. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I really do not know, and I am curious as well. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > It is very confusing and users need to do additional steps in > > > order > > > > to > > > > > >> give > > > > > >> > the rights they want. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I completely agree, this is poor. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I think is a problem of how the Groups are perceived. Only as a > > > rights > > > > > >> > mechanism or as a semantically grouping. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We should not decide this, since groups maybe synchronized from > > > > external > > > > > >> system (ie LDAP), imposing groups for rights is not correct. By > > the > > > > way, > > > > > >> groups may contains groups, but I am almost sure that this will > > work > > > > > >> properly in practice. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > If we use groups just to give rights than the current > > > implementation > > > > > is > > > > > >> > usable. But if you have groups, like Tech team, Design team, > > > > > Marketing, > > > > > >> > Happy team ... etc in order to classify our users in other > ways > > > > beside > > > > > >> > rights management, giving permission to a user is breaking all > > the > > > > > >> > inheritance from upper levels. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Example: > > > > > >> > Group A(Managers) has View (default allowed) at wiki level - > > this > > > > > means > > > > > >> > that > > > > > >> > they should be allowed to view all the pages in the wiki. > > > > > >> > Group B(Tech Team) has View (explicitly denied) at spaceX > level > > - > > > > this > > > > > >> > means > > > > > >> > they shouldn't be allowed to view this space. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > But I have a person (the managerX) in Group B that is supposed > > to > > > > see > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > info in spaceX level. So the first logical move would be to > give > > > him > > > > > >> allow > > > > > >> > at space level (having in mind that space rights are stronger > > that > > > > > wiki > > > > > >> > rights and the view right has been overriden). But, if I give > > > > managerX > > > > > >> view > > > > > >> > right, all the other groups (incluing Managers) will be denied > > for > > > > > >> spaceX > > > > > >> > level. This means I need to know that and "repair" again all > the > > > > > rights > > > > > >> I > > > > > >> > ALREADY set at the higher level. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > This behavior is not logical for me. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is not logical for me and I imagine many others ! > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > A solution would be to take out managerX form Group B and > leave > > it > > > > > just > > > > > >> in > > > > > >> > Managers group. Yes, this way my problem is solved, but this > > means > > > > > >> Groups > > > > > >> > are only used for Rights purposes. Group B (Tech Team) is no > > > longer > > > > > >> > semantically compact and I can't further give this group > compact > > > > > tasks, > > > > > >> > etc. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Please tell if is a way to change this behavior and please > have > > in > > > > > mind > > > > > >> > XWiki 3.0, where Groups are going beyond rights management and > > > they > > > > > >> should > > > > > >> > be seen as collaboration mechanisms (which need to be > > semantical). > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> IMO, XWiki 3.0 should have a complete rework of the right > service > > > > > >> implementation, and breaks with the past. > > > > > >> Since this will cause many migration issue, I am not in favor of > > > > > >> progressive > > > > > >> changes, and I would prefer to see a big single change that fix > > > this, > > > > > and > > > > > >> also the current discussion on script rights. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Denis > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Rights should be inherited from upper level and should affect > only > > > the > > > > > >> > user/group where a change is made, not make some complicated > > > > > >> implications > > > > > >> > at > > > > > >> > other levels and groups. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > > >> > Caty > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:48, Ecaterina Valica < > > > vali...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Hi, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Did: > > > > > >> > > - source of inheritance is per rights; > > > > > >> > > - local source of inheritance: if the a right is allowed to > > > anyone > > > > > >> else > > > > > >> > at > > > > > >> > > the same level, it is implicitly disallowed for any others; > > > > > >> > > - inheritance from upper levels / groups. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Please see if I put the rights correctly: > > > > > >> > > Wiki Level: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Wiki > > > > > >> > > Space Level: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Space > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Obs. Summary view + icons not done yet. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > >> > > Caty > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:31, Denis Gervalle < > d...@softec.lu> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> Hi Caty, > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> This one is simpler and more easy to understand than > proposal > > 2 > > > > > >> (which I > > > > > >> > >> liked but were complex). It is your best try IMO. I agree > > with > > > > Caty > > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > >> using icons too reduce the place taken will not allow easy > > > > > >> extensions. > > > > > >> > But > > > > > >> > >> Alex proposal would help to have a summary view, which is > > nice > > > to > > > > > >> have > > > > > >> > >> too. > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Maybe we could do both in fact. Propose a summary view (by > > > > > default), > > > > > >> > which > > > > > >> > >> fit a single line per user, this view would present the > > common > > > > > rights > > > > > >> > >> (V/C/E/D/A/(R/P)) using icons, and a last icon would be > used > > to > > > > > >> mention > > > > > >> > >> there is more special rights either inherited, allowed or > > > denied. > > > > > So > > > > > >> we > > > > > >> > >> only > > > > > >> > >> need to use (and think about) a short icon representation > for > > > > > common > > > > > >> > >> rights, > > > > > >> > >> and extended rights will be represented by a single special > > > > > >> > >> representation. > > > > > >> > >> Rows could be expanded individually or globally so if you > > want > > > a > > > > > more > > > > > >> > >> detailled information, you may reach it either for a single > > > user > > > > or > > > > > >> all > > > > > >> > at > > > > > >> > >> once. Changing common rights would be allowed in collapsed > > mode > > > > and > > > > > >> > >> expanded > > > > > >> > >> mode, but changing special rights would only be allowed in > > > > expanded > > > > > >> > view. > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> If you want to keep the width even smaller, you may also > > > colspan > > > > > the > > > > > >> > >> user/group column over the others, using 2 rows per user, > but > > I > > > > am > > > > > >> not > > > > > >> > >> sure > > > > > >> > >> it will be nice. (Could this be only when horizontal space > is > > > > short > > > > > >> ?) > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> I really like this one because it is simple to learn > without > > > > > >> > documentation > > > > > >> > >> and could also help learning how rights works, but there is > > > again > > > > > >> > >> some inconstancies with the current implementation. Compare > > to > > > > > >> proposal > > > > > >> > 3, > > > > > >> > >> these inconsistencies may be nicely fixed and really helps > > > > > >> understanding > > > > > >> > >> why > > > > > >> > >> the right is disallowed at any time. You can do it like > this: > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> - the inheritance pop-up information should be at the > right > > > > level > > > > > in > > > > > >> > >> the inheritance columns. The rights are inherited and check > > > > > >> > individually, > > > > > >> > >> so > > > > > >> > >> the precise source of inheritance is per rights, not only > per > > > > user > > > > > or > > > > > >> > >> group > > > > > >> > >> - there is a local source of inheritance: if the a right > is > > > > > allowed > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > >> anyone else at the same level, it is implicitly disallowed > > for > > > > any > > > > > >> > others. > > > > > >> > >> So the source of inheritance is the local level, implying a > > > deny > > > > > >> because > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > >> > >> local level has at least a specific allow. This means than > > when > > > > you > > > > > >> drag > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > >> > >> first time a right in the allow column, all other > user/group > > at > > > > the > > > > > >> same > > > > > >> > >> level will have that right inherited deny from the current > > > level. > > > > > >> (For > > > > > >> > >> those > > > > > >> > >> who wonder and will check the source of the right service, > > yes, > > > > > there > > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > >> potential performance improvement by immediately denying > when > > a > > > > > >> > >> non-matching > > > > > >> > >> allow is found, currently we continue to check right at > > higher > > > > > level > > > > > >> for > > > > > >> > >> more deny, this is not really clever) > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> With these changes, I really feel that this last proposal > > could > > > > be > > > > > a > > > > > >> > real > > > > > >> > >> improvement in the way rights are applied, and keeps the > > > > interface > > > > > >> > simple > > > > > >> > >> at > > > > > >> > >> the same time. > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> WDYT ? > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Denis > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 07:57, Ecaterina Valica < > > > > vali...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius < > > > > > >> alex.busen...@xwiki.com > > > > > >> > >> > >wrote: > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > I like this version, it makes clear what is > > allowed/denied > > > > and > > > > > >> why, > > > > > >> > >> but > > > > > >> > >> > > it takes a lot of space. What if those rights names > would > > > be > > > > > >> > replaced > > > > > >> > >> by > > > > > >> > >> > > big icons and placed side by side? Like this (sorry for > > > > > >> ASCII-art): > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > -------------------+-------------------------------------+--+------ > > > > > >> > >> > > Unregistered users | [+V] [+C] [+R] [-D] [-A] [-P] > [-CC] > > | > > > | > > > > > >> [-E] > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > Big Icons: > > > > > >> > >> > We are using Silk set for our icons and this is > > constraining. > > > > > Also, > > > > > >> > >> Rights > > > > > >> > >> > version 3-4 were made having rights extensibility in > mind, > > > for > > > > > use > > > > > >> > cases > > > > > >> > >> > like adding "captchaComment" right, or "annotate" right, > or > > > > > >> > >> > "applicationXusage" right .... so I don't think is very > > good > > > if > > > > > >> > >> > applications > > > > > >> > >> > are gonna have to choose their custom icon to represent > > their > > > > > >> custom > > > > > >> > >> right, > > > > > >> > >> > because is gonna be a mess in the UI. > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > There are few possible icons to choose from (in order to > > keep > > > > the > > > > > >> > >> look&feel > > > > > >> > >> > unitary) and having the developers choose their own icon > > for > > > > the > > > > > >> right > > > > > >> > >> they > > > > > >> > >> > extend is gonna break the UI consistency. > > > > > >> > >> > I think is much easier, extensible and less visual > cryptic > > to > > > > > >> textual > > > > > >> > >> > describe an extensible right. > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > Placed side by side: > > > > > >> > >> > Version 4 takes a lot of space, yes, but the problem with > > > side > > > > by > > > > > >> side > > > > > >> > >> is > > > > > >> > >> > that is less readable (harder to scan the rights order). > > Also > > > > > it's > > > > > >> > >> easier > > > > > >> > >> > to > > > > > >> > >> > have a bigger area to select when you want to drag an > item. > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > Thanks Alex for your feedback, > > > > > >> > >> > Caty > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Alex > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > On 05/21/2010 07:51 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: > > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Changes: > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > - One additional column is added: "Default / > > Inherited > > > > > >> Rights", > > > > > >> > >> by > > > > > >> > >> > > > default all rights appear in this column > > > > > >> > >> > > > - By using drag'n'drop items are tossed around > > between > > > > > >> "Allow > > > > > >> > >> > rights", > > > > > >> > >> > > > "Deny rights" and "Default / Inherited Rights" > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Rights Proposal 4: > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Proposal > > > > > >> > >> > > > Wiki Prototype: > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Wiki > > > > > >> > >> > > > Space Prototype: > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Space > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > This proposal is done by using feedback provided by > > Roman > > > > > >> Muntyanu > > > > > >> > >> and > > > > > >> > >> > > > Raluca Morosan. > > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > > >> > >> > > > Caty > > > > > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> > >> > > > users mailing list > > > > > >> > >> > > > users@xwiki.org > > > > > >> > >> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> > >> > > devs mailing list > > > > > >> > >> > > d...@xwiki.org > > > > > >> > >> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> > >> > users mailing list > > > > > >> > >> > users@xwiki.org > > > > > >> > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> -- > > > > > >> > >> Denis Gervalle > > > > > >> > >> SOFTEC sa - CEO > > > > > >> > >> eGuilde sarl - CTO > > > > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> > >> devs mailing list > > > > > >> > >> d...@xwiki.org > > > > > >> > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> > users mailing list > > > > > >> > users@xwiki.org > > > > > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> Denis Gervalle > > > > > >> SOFTEC sa - CEO > > > > > >> eGuilde sarl - CTO > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> users mailing list > > > > > >> users@xwiki.org > > > > > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > users mailing list > > > > > users@xwiki.org > > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Denis Gervalle > > > > SOFTEC sa - CEO > > > > eGuilde sarl - CTO > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > devs mailing list > > > > d...@xwiki.org > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devs mailing list > > > d...@xwiki.org > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Denis Gervalle > > SOFTEC sa - CEO > > eGuilde sarl - CTO > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > d...@xwiki.org > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > d...@xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
