|Ecaterina Valica||May 10, 2010 6:39 am|
|Guillaume Lerouge||May 10, 2010 7:01 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 10, 2010 7:07 am|
|Thomas Mortagne||May 10, 2010 8:21 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 13, 2010 1:57 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 18, 2010 2:03 am|
|Guillaume Lerouge||May 18, 2010 8:08 am|
|Denis Gervalle||May 18, 2010 8:29 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 19, 2010 3:23 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 19, 2010 3:39 am|
|Denis Gervalle||May 19, 2010 6:52 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 19, 2010 7:33 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 20, 2010 9:18 am|
|Guillaume Lerouge||May 20, 2010 9:21 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 21, 2010 10:51 am|
|Alex Busenius||May 21, 2010 11:42 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 21, 2010 10:57 pm|
|Denis Gervalle||May 22, 2010 1:31 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 26, 2010 6:48 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 27, 2010 12:57 am|
|Denis Gervalle||May 27, 2010 1:26 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 31, 2010 7:53 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||May 31, 2010 7:54 am|
|Denis Gervalle||Jun 1, 2010 12:03 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 1, 2010 3:54 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 3, 2010 9:09 am|
|Denis Gervalle||Jun 4, 2010 12:42 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 4, 2010 9:54 am|
|Alex Busenius||Jun 4, 2010 10:57 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 4, 2010 11:23 am|
|Raluca Stavro||Jun 4, 2010 11:33 am|
|Raluca Stavro||Jun 4, 2010 11:36 am|
|Alex Busenius||Jun 4, 2010 12:05 pm|
|Denis Gervalle||Jun 4, 2010 3:53 pm|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 7, 2010 1:22 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 7, 2010 1:50 am|
|Denis Gervalle||Jun 7, 2010 2:24 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 7, 2010 8:00 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 8, 2010 2:19 am|
|Denis Gervalle||Jun 8, 2010 3:46 am|
|Raluca Stavro||Jun 8, 2010 4:44 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 8, 2010 6:41 am|
|Denis Gervalle||Jun 8, 2010 8:14 am|
|Philip Brunetti||Jun 8, 2010 6:54 pm|
|Caleb James DeLisle||Jun 8, 2010 7:31 pm|
|Vincent Massol||Jun 9, 2010 12:25 am|
|Sergiu Dumitriu||Jun 9, 2010 2:57 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 9, 2010 3:24 am|
|Ecaterina Valica||Jun 9, 2010 3:36 am|
|Sergiu Dumitriu||Jun 9, 2010 3:45 am|
|7 later messages|
|Subject:||Re: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Rights Management UI|
|From:||Ecaterina Valica (vali...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2010 3:54:26 am|
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:03, Denis Gervalle <dg...@softec.lu> wrote:
I probably have an issue with my browser (Chrome/Mac) but I cannot see the icons :(
Made some screenshots with how it suppose to look like: - Wiki: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wiki42View.png - Space: http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/space42View.png
Anyway this seem to me nice, but I am not sure you should prevent changing rights in summary mode. I think that summary mode should allow simple right management, and for 'casual' or less knowledgeable users, this should be the only mode used. This is not only a summary, but also a simplified interface.
I had your vision (changing rights in summary mode) in mind when I started prototyping. Let me show you some versions:
V1_space) First version took the exact order from the extended view (first Allow, second Deny rights) http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/spaceTest1.png
+ this version lets the user drag its right to the appropriate column +- has the same representation as the extended version --- there is no scanability: if I want to see the status of "delete" right for different groups/users I have to search for them (making me dizzy :P ) + there is no gapping space between rights
V2_space) Tried to fix the dizziness by providing same order/position for rights http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/spaceTest2.png +- this version lets the user drag its right to the appropriate column, but the user has not control over the position he choose to drop the target: the right will appear on the column it's suppose to be +- doesn't have the same representation as the extended version (allowed/denied order broke, determined order present) + scanability: it's easy to scan for the searched column/position - gap space between rights: ex. evalica-DenyDelete: some users might not like that gap and may not understand why is there (is it a bug?)
See also: V2_wiki) http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest2.png V2_wiki_expanded) http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest21.png
As you see in V2) has the same functionality as the expanded version. The main benefit is that is occupying less space, but we still need the expanded view for the Inherited/detailed information for each right.
The down side of version 2 http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest2.png is that if I want to *summarize *a global state for a given right (ex see for what users 'delete' is allowed/denied) at a global level, not at a group/user level, the same dizziness effect appears (I have to search for 'delete' right in three columns, for all the users)
V3) is the current proposal, it compresses the 3 column spread information in one view. http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/space42View.png - this version doesn't lets the user drag its right to the appropriate column +- doesn't have the same representation as the extended version + scanability: it's easy to scan for the searched column/position at a * global* level + there is no gapping space between rights
V3_wiki) http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest3.png is equivalent to V2_wiki) http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/wikiTest2.png
I prefer V3) over V2): + Summary does what is suppose to: give a global summary of existing rights, without being concerned of the type of the right (inherited, locally allowed, locally denied) + Good Readability +/- Doesn't allow rights to be dragged around. I prefer changing rights in expanded mode because there you also have more information, like source of the inheritance + 3 columns.
Being compact it's easier to understand the "local source of inheritance" for a given right. For example, allowing "view" right for 'evalica' will deny it for 'unregistered users' and 'registered users'. Being on the same column is easier to look for the change and see it in action (being highlighted). http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposal/space42View.png
Please tell me what you think about this rationale. It would be great if you have ideas about how to make the summary being draggable, but also keeping scanability and less gaps.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 16:54, Ecaterina Valica <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
Summary Icons for standard rights:
*Space Level:* http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights42Space *Wiki Level*:
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)
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26, Denis Gervalle <dg...@softec.lu> wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
I want to talk a bit about:
The inheritance is a little bit particular, since allowing a given
lower level, will deny that same right for anybody else even if
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:48, Ecaterina Valica <vali...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did: - source of inheritance is per rights; - local source of inheritance: if the a right is allowed to anyone
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:
Obs. Summary view + icons not done yet.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:31, Denis Gervalle <dg...@softec.lu> wrote:
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
using icons too reduce the place taken will not allow easy
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
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.
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
once. Changing common rights would be allowed in collapsed mode and expanded mode, but changing special rights would only be allowed in
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
sure it will be nice. (Could this be only when horizontal space is
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
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
the inheritance columns. The rights are inherited and check individually, so the precise source of inheritance is per rights, not only per
group - there is a local source of inheritance: if the a right is
anyone else at the same level, it is implicitly disallowed for
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
the first time a right in the allow column, all other user/group at
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,
potential performance improvement by immediately denying when a non-matching allow is found, currently we continue to check right at higher
more deny, this is not really clever)
With these changes, I really feel that this last proposal could
improvement in the way rights are applied, and keeps the
at the same time.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 07:57, Ecaterina Valica <
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius <
I like this version, it makes clear what is allowed/denied
it takes a lot of space. What if those rights names would be
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.
version 3-4 were made having rights extensibility in mind, for
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
because is gonna be a mess in the UI.
There are few possible icons to choose from (in order to keep
unitary) and having the developers choose their own icon for
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
that is less readable (harder to scan the rights order). Also
to have a bigger area to select when you want to drag an item.
Thanks Alex for your feedback, Caty
On 05/21/2010 07:51 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:
- One additional column is added: "Default / Inherited
default all rights appear in this column - By using drag'n'drop items are tossed around between
"Deny rights" and "Default / Inherited Rights"
Rights Proposal 4:
This proposal is done by using feedback provided by Roman
Raluca Morosan. Thanks, Caty
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO