Re: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Rights Management UI
Hi Denis, I want to thank you again for all the help you are giving :P 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 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. 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...
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.
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. Another thing we need to consider for this proposal is how the filtering is gonna be made.
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.
- 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
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal... *
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
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
keeping -
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
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 06/03/2010 06:09 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:
Hi Denis,
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.
The proper icon for deny is not (X), but (-), bullet_delete.gif in Silk, or the larger delete.gif. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
participants (3)
-
Denis Gervalle -
Ecaterina Valica -
Sergiu Dumitriu