On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 17:01, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 15:39, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi,

Please give feedback for Rights Management UI Proposal.

*Partial Prototype*

- Wiki Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Wiki - Space Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Space - Page Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Page

*Desired Interaction *

-

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Proposal#HIn...

It took me a little time to understand but now that I get it I think it can be a powerful model. Nice work :-)

To recap:

- "View / Comment / Edit / Delete" are grouped under "Page rights" -> that disturbed me at first because "page rights" is used for 2 things -> rights related to page actions AND rights at page level -> maybe there should be a different naming for both - I like a lot the fact that inherited rights are displayed at all levels - The "Containing Spaces" part of the page is a bit confusing -> could you elaborate on what it is?

- "the rights apply to containing spaces and their children" - The cascading of the rights between wiki, space and page is showed explicitly It gives you a visualization of what elements inherit those rights. And also gives you the opportunity to navigate and add specific rights.

Guillaume

...

Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi, On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 17:33, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Caty,

On May 10, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:

...

Hi,

Please give feedback for Rights Management UI Proposal.

*Partial Prototype*

- Wiki Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Wiki - Space Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Space - Page Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Page

*Desired Interaction *

-

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Proposal#HIn...

Some comments/questions: * Lots of things to like: inheritance, "simulation", not having to cycle through rights, autosuggest, etc * A bit hard to understand initially (I'm not sure I fully understand yet :)) * Not sure it's scalable. In the future applications/components will be able to register new rights. The proposed UI may not be the best fit for this. A single tabular view for all rights would probably fit better, possibly with a category selector if we want to keep the proposed categories (admin rights vs register rights vs page rights vs programming rights). In any case we need to think about rights scalability.

I didn't knew about this part. Can you give me an example of what this means? A group of rights could be labeled as "Administrator" and it should contain "View" + "Edit" + "Comment" + "Delete" + "Admin" + "Register"? I give this use case, when I include the "View", "Edit", "Comment", "Delete" - because for users is not clear that "Admin" is including them, so maybe they should be more explicitly showed. Another group could be labeled as "Reviewer" and this could include "View" + "Edit" + "Comment". Another group could be "Developer" and could include "View" + "Edit" + "Delete" + "Programming". Is this what you mean by extensible? Or extensible means that in the future maybe you'll want to add more rights, like "Delete Comments", etc?

* Not sure I understand the "containing spaces/pages" UI. Should the "contain" table header be "Space" (or "Page") instead? Is it a "simulation" to see the rights for a given space or page?

The idea was to explicitly show the children that are gonna to inherit the rights specified in that level. Also to show what elements have declared other rights, than the ones specified in the level, by this overridden them. And also is should have been acting like a navigation model towards the children.

* In the page level view: "creator" and "administrators" is another way of viewing the information on the left right? (not very clear to me)

The "creator" is a special attribute and the owner can also "delete" the page. I decided to represent this attribute. (if he created, then he has "edit", if "edit" than he has "view", and as a creator he must also have "comment" in order to take care of the page). The "administrators" part: In the page level you can't set admins (only in the space and wiki), but from an inheritance point of view, there are people that have rights for that page, that's why I decided to represent them. To be clear why "rstavro" can delete my page, even if she isn't in the "Page Rights" section (she is set as an admin at the space level).

* Probably not going to happen but if there are lots of admins, listing all admins on the right will not scale.

we can have pagination.

* Is it planned that the user profile page will also show what the user has access to?

yep, but not done yet.

* How are right modifications saved? A big problem with the current UI is that there's no save action and a lot of modifications are done unitarily leading to lots of events sent + hard to rollback as a consequence.

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Proposal#HUs... making changes to the rights, the "Save"/"Reset" actions are shown.

* How does it work? For example, imagine a space with no rights at all. I then click allow for the view rights for the admin group for ex. What happens? Does it immediately refresh all views and put a "x" in for all other groups and users not in the admin group?

The space is always gonna show the rights inherited from the wiki level. Thanks for the feedback, Caty

General comment: * It looks powerful but complex

Good work. Let's fine tune this.

Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 18:21, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 15:39, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi,

Please give feedback for Rights Management UI Proposal.

*Partial Prototype*

- Wiki Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Wiki - Space Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Space - Page Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Page

*Desired Interaction *

-

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights2Proposal#HIn...

...

How do you give rights to users/groups from main wiki when you are in a subwiki in this UI ?

The navigation in this UI is like this: Wiki Level: You can use the "Containing Spaces/Pages" to go down the hierarchy. http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights2Proposal... Page Level: Right after the title "Rights Management", there is a "Inheritance Level" navigation component to go upwards the hierarchy. http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights2Proposal... This screenshots only show the "Wiki - Space - Page" case, but the navigation can be easily extended to represent "Main Wiki - SubWiki - Space - Page". Thanks for the feedback, Caty

...

Thanks, Caty _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi, On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:03, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

I've reviewed some of your feedback and added them to Rights Management UI Proposal *VERSION 3*:

*Partial Prototype*

- Wiki Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Wiki - Space Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space - Page Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Page

*Desired Interaction*

- http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal

Thanks, Caty

I like the separation between rights definition and rights affectation. Only downside -> inherited rights are displayed less clearly than what they were in version 2. Also, a drop-down might be better than an autosuggest when selecting which right should be added to a role. Guillaume

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 18:29, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 17:08, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]

...

wrote:

...

Hi,

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:03, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi,

I've reviewed some of your feedback and added them to Rights Management UI Proposal *VERSION 3*:

*Partial Prototype*

- Wiki Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Wiki - Space Level:

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space

...

- Page Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Page

*Desired Interaction*

-

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal

...

Thanks, Caty

I like the separation between rights definition and rights affectation. Only

Nice indeed, but I do not understand how it could fits with current implementation.

...

downside -> inherited rights are displayed less clearly than what they were in version 2.

and I do not see any inherited information anymore.

For example, in Space Level http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space the text in yellow represents the inherited users and inherited roles from upper level. The text in black (evalica with Reviewer and the Reviewer definition) is specified only for this level. After the save the added "Reviewer" right is gonna look like this: http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights3Proposal/addU6....

So, proposal 3 seems less interesting than proposal 2. I do not see what it solves based on previous comments either. Caty, could you explain further your goals with this proposal ?

I tried in proposal 3 to make it more easy to use. People told me that they didn't understood the "Containing Spaces/Pages" so I've removed it. This proposal gives the users the possibility to create Roles that can have semantically value to them and thus making the rights more easy to use. This proposal accommodates the case: "Not sure it's scalable. In the future applications/components will be able to register new rights". Having the rights displayed vertically and only on Add, makes the UI more scalable, and in the code we could add as many rights as we would want. Also the spaces is now more economical having just "Allow"/"Deny" columns. Thanks, Caty

Denis

...

Also, a drop-down might be better than an autosuggest when selecting

which

...

right should be added to a role.

Guillaume

...

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Hi Denis, On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:52, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 18:29, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 17:08, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]

...

wrote:

...

Hi,

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:03, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi,

I've reviewed some of your feedback and added them to Rights Management UI Proposal *VERSION 3*:

*Partial Prototype*

- Wiki Level:

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Wiki

...

- Space Level:

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space

...

- Page Level:

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Page

...

*Desired Interaction*

-

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal

...

...

Thanks, Caty

I like the separation between rights definition and rights affectation. Only

Nice indeed, but I do not understand how it could fits with current implementation.

...

downside -> inherited rights are displayed less clearly than what they were in version 2.

and I do not see any inherited information anymore.

For example, in Space Level http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space the text in yellow represents the inherited users and inherited roles from upper level.

The text in black (evalica with Reviewer and the Reviewer definition) is specified only for this level.

After the save the added "Reviewer" right is gonna look like this:

http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights3Proposal/addU6....

Thanks for these precision, I have better understand your idea. (Personally I have some difficulties with colors (partially color blind), so information based on colors is not always easy for me.)

So you're a great test candidate :). I also received a mail from Roman (he wanted icons to represent rights), so what I can do for you is to try a version with color + little icon to represent "Inherited"|"Allow"|"Deny". I will think about it.

...

...

So, proposal 3 seems less interesting than proposal 2. I do not see

what it

...

solves based on previous comments either. Caty, could you explain further your goals with this proposal ?

I tried in proposal 3 to make it more easy to use. People told me that they didn't understood the "Containing Spaces/Pages" so I've removed it. This proposal gives the users the possibility to create Roles that can have semantically value to them and thus making the rights more easy to use.

This proposal accommodates the case: "Not sure it's scalable. In the future applications/components will be able to register new rights". Having the rights displayed vertically and only on Add, makes the UI more scalable, and in the code we could add as many rights as we would want. Also the spaces is now more economical having just "Allow"/"Deny" columns.

I completely agree that proposal 3 is clearer. The problem is that your samples and the structure of this proposal are really far from current implementation. Proposal 2 were fitting better but the samples where also not realistic and remarks from Thomas about global wiki users should also be integrated.

About Thomas feedback, don't you like http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal#HNa...

So, I am puzzle by your goals here. Aren't we going too fast ? Since there is very poor documentation about the way XWiki rights works (I would be happy to improve that, but it will require some time), I have the impression that there is a important misunderstanding of how inheritance is effectively applied. So the design of a proper UI is not easy. I have also read the draft of Sergiu that aims to improve the documentation, but either I have not understand it or it does not describe current behavior.

So the question is for me, are we designing this UI to think about future possibilities or to replace the current UI ?

My purpose is "to make rights easy to use at last". IMO this means do whatever it takes to make them "easy to use" :) I try to base my proposal on existing code, but I never disregard new functionalities that I can add if this means the UI and experience is gonna be improved. The only thing Rights version 3 is adding is the "Role" part, which is some kind of groups for rights. If the solution given is gonna be convincing enough to be use in the rights part (not yet .... but maybe some version of it) I'm sure there will be someone that is gonna want to implement it. Until then I will continue to prototype and find out how we can add all that functionality in one place. And yes... I need to focus more on the inheritance again. Thanks, Caty

Denis

...

Thanks, Caty

...

Denis

...

Also, a drop-down might be better than an autosuggest when selecting

which

...

right should be added to a role.

Guillaume

...

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 21:04, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:33, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi Denis,

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:52, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 18:29, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 17:08, Guillaume Lerouge < [email protected]

...

wrote:

...

Hi,

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:03, Ecaterina Valica < [email protected]

...

...

wrote:

...

> Hi, > > I've reviewed some of your feedback and added them to Rights

Management

...

UI > Proposal *VERSION 3*: > > *Partial Prototype* > > - Wiki Level: > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Wiki > - Space Level: >

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space

...

...

> - Page Level: > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Page > > *Desired Interaction* > > - >

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal

...

...

...

> > Thanks, > Caty >

I like the separation between rights definition and rights affectation. Only

Nice indeed, but I do not understand how it could fits with current implementation.

...

downside -> inherited rights are displayed less clearly than what they were in version 2.

and I do not see any inherited information anymore.

For example, in Space Level http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space the text in yellow represents the inherited users and inherited roles from upper level.

The text in black (evalica with Reviewer and the Reviewer definition) is specified only for this level.

After the save the added "Reviewer" right is gonna look like this:

http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights3Proposal/addU6....

...

...

Thanks for these precision, I have better understand your idea.

(Personally

...

I have some difficulties with colors (partially color blind), so information based on colors is not always easy for me.)

So you're a great test candidate :). I also received a mail from Roman (he wanted icons to represent rights), so what I can do for you is to try a version with color + little icon to represent "Inherited"|"Allow"|"Deny". I will think about it.

I think that could be nice to have more visual than color information for inheritance. The way it was in proposal 2 was fine, since this was more intensity than color. And I will be pleased to be your candidate. Be careful that using icons for representing specific rights could add complexity when (later) components add new rights dynamically.

...

...

...

...

So, proposal 3 seems less interesting than proposal 2. I do not see

what it

...

solves based on previous comments either. Caty, could you explain further your goals with this proposal ?

I tried in proposal 3 to make it more easy to use. People told me

that

...

...

they

...

didn't understood the "Containing Spaces/Pages" so I've removed it. This proposal gives the users the possibility to create Roles that can have semantically value to them and thus making the rights more easy to use.

This proposal accommodates the case: "Not sure it's scalable. In the future applications/components will be able to register new rights". Having the rights displayed vertically and only on Add, makes the UI more scalable, and in the code we could add as many rights as we would want. Also the spaces is now more economical having just "Allow"/"Deny" columns.

I completely agree that proposal 3 is clearer. The problem is that your samples and the structure of this proposal are really far from current implementation. Proposal 2 were fitting better but the samples where also not realistic and remarks from Thomas about global wiki users should also be integrated.

About Thomas feedback, don't you like

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal#HNa...

...

?

...

So, I am puzzle by your goals here. Aren't we going too fast ? Since there is very poor documentation about the way XWiki rights works

(I

...

would be happy to improve that, but it will require some time), I have the impression that there is a important misunderstanding of how inheritance is effectively applied. So the design of a proper UI is not easy. I have also read the draft of Sergiu that aims to improve the documentation, but either I have not understand it or it does not describe current behavior.

So the question is for me, are we designing this UI to think about future possibilities or to replace the current UI ?

My purpose is "to make rights easy to use at last". IMO this means do whatever it takes to make them "easy to use" :) I try to base my proposal on existing code, but I never disregard new functionalities that I can add if this means the UI and experience is gonna be improved.

The only thing Rights version 3 is adding is the "Role" part, which is some kind of groups for rights. If the solution given is gonna be convincing enough to be use in the rights part (not yet .... but maybe some version of it) I'm sure there will be someone that is gonna want to implement it. Until then I will continue to prototype and find out how we can add all that functionality in one place.

Well, this precisely the grouping of right that is a big change. Currently, right are inherit individually, not as a group. Moreover, 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. Said another way, once an allowance for a given right has been found and you are not part of it, you are denied. Of course, there is an exception to this rules regarding global admin rights, these ones are evaluated before and gets priority.

I would agree if you find this to be not the correct way of evaluating right, but this is the way it works since the beginning. There is also an option to evaluate rights based on a hierarchy of spaces, but this one is usually disabled. It will probably be revived when such hierarchy of space are bring back using the new reference model.

So, I am convinced that current right management is poor, but changing it will require important changes, and time.

Hope you get a better idea of my concerns. For detailled information on how rights are processed, you may want to have a look at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWikiRightServiceReversed. This is really bare documentation of the code, but it tells the truths.

Denis, thanks for the extra info Caty

Denis

...

And yes... I need to focus more on the inheritance again.

Thanks, Caty

...

Denis

...

Thanks, Caty

...

Denis

...

Also, a drop-down might be better than an autosuggest when

selecting

...

which

...

right should be added to a role.

Guillaume

> _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >

-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi, On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 18:18, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

A small variation for Version 3 http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3AProposal

Changes:

- improved the display of inheritance of rights within a role description; - emphasize the display of "Inherited"|"Allow"|"Deny" by using color and icon representation.

For Rights version 4 I'll remove the concept of Role.

Just for the record, I like this version a lot and I think having Roles makes a lot of sense. Looking forward to your nest iteration, I'm sure it will be even better :-) Guillaume

Thanks, Caty

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:30, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 21:04, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:33, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi Denis,

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:52, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 18:29, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 17:08, Guillaume Lerouge < [email protected] > >wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:03, Ecaterina Valica < [email protected]

...

> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've reviewed some of your feedback and added them to Rights Management > > UI > > > Proposal *VERSION 3*: > > > > > > *Partial Prototype* > > > > > > - Wiki Level: > > >

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Wiki

...

> > > - Space Level: > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space > > > - Page Level: > > >

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Page

...

> > > > > > *Desired Interaction* > > > > > > - > > > > >

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal

...

...

...

...

...

> > > > > > Thanks, > > > Caty > > > > > > > I like the separation between rights definition and rights affectation. > > Only > > > > Nice indeed, but I do not understand how it could fits with current > implementation. > > > > downside -> inherited rights are displayed less clearly than what they > were > > in version 2. > > > > and I do not see any inherited information anymore. >

For example, in Space Level http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space the text in yellow represents the inherited users and inherited roles from upper level.

The text in black (evalica with Reviewer and the Reviewer definition) is specified only for this level.

After the save the added "Reviewer" right is gonna look like this:

http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights3Proposal/addU6....

...

...

...

Thanks for these precision, I have better understand your idea.

(Personally

...

I have some difficulties with colors (partially color blind), so information based on colors is not always easy for me.)

So you're a great test candidate :). I also received a mail from Roman (he wanted icons to represent rights), so what I can do for you is to try a version with color + little icon to represent "Inherited"|"Allow"|"Deny". I will think about it.

I think that could be nice to have more visual than color information for inheritance. The way it was in proposal 2 was fine, since this was more intensity than color. And I will be pleased to be your candidate. Be careful that using icons for representing specific rights could add complexity when (later) components add new rights dynamically.

...

...

...

> > So, proposal 3 seems less interesting than proposal 2. I do not

see

...

...

what

...

it > solves based on previous comments either. > Caty, could you explain further your goals with this proposal ? >

I tried in proposal 3 to make it more easy to use. People told me that they didn't understood the "Containing Spaces/Pages" so I've removed it. This proposal gives the users the possibility to create Roles that can have semantically value to them and thus making the rights more easy to use.

This proposal accommodates the case: "Not sure it's scalable. In the future applications/components will be able to register new rights". Having the rights displayed vertically and only on Add, makes the UI more scalable, and in the code we could add as many rights as we would want. Also the spaces is now more economical having just "Allow"/"Deny" columns.

I completely agree that proposal 3 is clearer. The problem is that your samples and the structure of this proposal are really far from current implementation. Proposal 2 were fitting better but the samples where also not realistic and remarks from Thomas about global wiki users should also be integrated.

About Thomas feedback, don't you like

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal#HNa...

...

...

?

...

So, I am puzzle by your goals here. Aren't we going too fast ? Since there is very poor documentation about the way XWiki rights

works (I

...

would be happy to improve that, but it will require some time), I have the impression that there is a important misunderstanding of how inheritance is effectively applied. So the design of a proper UI is not easy. I have also read the draft of Sergiu that aims to improve the documentation, but either I have not understand it or it does not describe current behavior.

So the question is for me, are we designing this UI to think about future possibilities or to replace the current UI ?

My purpose is "to make rights easy to use at last". IMO this means do whatever it takes to make them "easy to use" :) I try to base my proposal on existing code, but I never disregard new functionalities that I can add if this means the UI and experience is gonna be improved.

The only thing Rights version 3 is adding is the "Role" part, which is some kind of groups for rights. If the solution given is gonna be convincing enough to be use in the rights part (not yet .... but maybe some version of it) I'm sure there will be someone that is gonna want to implement it. Until then I will continue to prototype and find out how we can add all that functionality in one place.

Well, this precisely the grouping of right that is a big change. Currently, right are inherit individually, not as a group. Moreover, 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. Said another way, once an allowance for a given right has been found and you are not part of it, you are denied. Of course, there is an exception to this rules regarding global admin rights, these ones are evaluated before and gets priority.

I would agree if you find this to be not the correct way of evaluating right, but this is the way it works since the beginning. There is also an option to evaluate rights based on a hierarchy of spaces, but this one is usually disabled. It will probably be revived when such hierarchy of space are bring back using the new reference model.

So, I am convinced that current right management is poor, but changing it will require important changes, and time.

Hope you get a better idea of my concerns. For detailled information on how rights are processed, you may want to have a look at http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWikiRightServiceReversed. This is really bare documentation of the code, but it tells the truths.

Denis, thanks for the extra info Caty

...

Denis

...

And yes... I need to focus more on the inheritance again.

Thanks, Caty

...

Denis

...

Thanks, Caty

> > Denis > > > > > > Also, a drop-down might be better than an autosuggest when selecting > which > > right should be added to a role. > > > > Guillaume > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > devs mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Guillaume Lerouge > > Product Manager - XWiki SAS > > Skype: wikibc > > Twitter: glerouge > > http://guillaumelerouge.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > -- > Denis Gervalle > SOFTEC sa - CEO > eGuilde sarl - CTO > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/

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] 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

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 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius <[email protected]

...

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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO

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. 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. It is very confusing and users need to do additional steps in order to give the rights they want. I think is a problem of how the Groups are perceived. Only as a rights mechanism or as a semantically grouping. 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. 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). 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius <[email protected]

...

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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

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 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius < [email protected]

...

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 > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Caty, I probably have an issue with my browser (Chrome/Mac) but I cannot see the icons :( 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 ? Denis On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 16:54, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>

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 <[email protected]

...

...

...

...

wrote:

> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius < [email protected] > >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 > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO

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 <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:03, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> 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... - Space:

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal...

...

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...

+ 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... +- 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... V2_wiki_expanded)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal...

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... 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... - 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... is equivalent to V2_wiki)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal...

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...

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 <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> 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 < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < [email protected]

...

...

>> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius < [email protected] >> > >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 >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > devs mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > users mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Denis Gervalle >> SOFTEC sa - CEO >> eGuilde sarl - CTO >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO

Hi Caty, On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 18:09, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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#HR...

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#HA...

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/Rights43Proposa...

...

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 <[email protected]>

wrote:

...

...

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:03, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> 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...

...

...

- Space:

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal...

...

...

...

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...

...

...

+ 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...

...

...

+- 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...

...

...

V2_wiki_expanded)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal...

...

...

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...

...

...

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...

...

...

- 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...

...

...

is equivalent to V2_wiki)

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal...

...

...

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...

...

...

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 <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]

...

...

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 <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica < [email protected]> > 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 < [email protected]> > 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 < [email protected]> 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 < [email protected]

> > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius < > [email protected] > > >> > >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 > > >> > > > [email protected] > > >> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > >> > > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > devs mailing list > > >> > > [email protected] > > >> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > >> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > users mailing list > > >> > [email protected] > > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Denis Gervalle > > >> SOFTEC sa - CEO > > >> eGuilde sarl - CTO > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> devs mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > -- > Denis Gervalle > SOFTEC sa - CEO > eGuilde sarl - CTO > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >

_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO

On 05/27/2010 10:26 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica<[email protected]> 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 was done because the deny right is stronger than the allow right. How can I say that for space X only group A has view right, and nobody else? Attempt 1. Deny to Guest and All, allow to A. Oups, doesn't work, since everybody in A is also in All, and deny is stronger, so everyone is denied... Attempt 2. Hm, how could this be done? Denying to everybody is not an option... So, allow the view right to A, and automagically everybody else is denied. Great, XWiki really rocks! This is not a very valid use case, but more like a necessity. When designing the current rights mechanism, a lot of not-entirely-compatible use cases had to be balanced, and the outcome doesn't cleanly satisfy all use cases, but it tries to make each scenario possible one way or another.

...

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.

+1.

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

-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/

On 06/09/2010 12:24 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:

...

...

...

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 was done because the deny right is stronger than the allow right. How can I say that for space X only group A has view right, and nobody else?

Attempt 1. Deny to Guest and All, allow to A. Oups, doesn't work, since everybody in A is also in All, and deny is stronger, so everyone is denied...

IMO, RegisteredUsers is a special case. Imagine RegisteredUsers as a Wiki, and GroupA as a Space; and have the same level of appliance for groups (page-space-wiki, where space rights override wiki rights).

True, but that's not the way it was implemented initially. XWikiAllGroup was just another group like all others. Now, it is a bit more special, since it can be completely virtual, it can implicitly contain all registered users, and it is referenced in the code as the default group for new users.

So if I deny All and allow A, semantically A will have allow, because the tie will be broken by level. Just a thought.

Caty

...

Attempt 2. Hm, how could this be done? Denying to everybody is not an option... So, allow the view right to A, and automagically everybody else is denied. Great, XWiki really rocks!

This is not a very valid use case, but more like a necessity. When designing the current rights mechanism, a lot of not-entirely-compatible use cases had to be balanced, and the outcome doesn't cleanly satisfy all use cases, but it tries to make each scenario possible one way or another.

-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 18:08, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:03, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi,

I've reviewed some of your feedback and added them to Rights Management UI Proposal *VERSION 3*:

*Partial Prototype*

- Wiki Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Wiki - Space Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space - Page Level: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Page

*Desired Interaction*

-

http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal

...

Thanks, Caty

I like the separation between rights definition and rights affectation. Only downside -> inherited rights are displayed less clearly than what they were in version 2.

Also, a drop-down might be better than an autosuggest when selecting which right should be added to a role.

if there are many rights, the select is gonna be hard to navigate. A filterable select would be nice indeed.

Guillaume

...

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Guillaume Lerouge Product Manager - XWiki SAS Skype: wikibc Twitter: glerouge http://guillaumelerouge.com/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs