1 Jun
2010
1 Jun
'10
6:06 p.m.
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.
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. 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 +/- ?
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
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:54, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:03, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights42Space
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.
given
ways.
implementation
this
him
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
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Space
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
again
deny
level.
be
be
side
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
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/Rights4Proposa…
- Space:
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
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/Rights4Proposa…
+ 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/Rights4Proposa…
+- 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/Rights4Proposa…
V2_wiki_expanded)
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
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/Rights4Proposa…
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/Rights4Proposa…
- 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/Rights4Proposa…
is equivalent to
V2_wiki)
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa…
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/Rights4Proposa…
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 <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica
<valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Summary Icons for standard rights:
> >
> > *Space Level:*
> > >
*Wiki Level*:
>
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Proposal
> -
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 <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I want to talk a bit about:
> >> >
> >> > > The inheritance is a little bit particular, since allowing a
>>
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 > >> >
> >>
> >> 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 is
beside
> > usable. But if you have groups, like
Tech team, Design team,
Marketing,
>> > Happy team ... etc in order to classify our users in other ways > >
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 - >> > 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
> 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 > >> > 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 <
valicac(a)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:
>> > >
>> > >
>
> > > Obs. Summary view + icons not done yet.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Caty
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:31, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)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
> >> 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
colspan
>> 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
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
>>
> >> 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
any
> >> > others.
> >> > >> So the source of inheritance is the local level, implying a
> > >> 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
>>
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
> (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
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 <
valicac(a)gmail.com
>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius <
>> alex.busenius(a)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 > >> > 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 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(a)xwiki.org
> > >> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > devs mailing list
> > >> > > devs(a)xwiki.org
> > >> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > >> > >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > users mailing list
> > >> > users(a)xwiki.org
> > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Denis Gervalle
> > >> SOFTEC sa - CEO
> > >> eGuilde sarl - CTO
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> devs mailing list
> > >> devs(a)xwiki.org
> > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > users mailing list
> > users(a)xwiki.org
> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Denis Gervalle
> SOFTEC sa - CEO
> eGuilde sarl - CTO
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users(a)xwiki.org
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users