[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] ***SPAM*** Re: Permissions wrong?

[Mike Rylander]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jason Boyer <jasonb at myjclibrary.org> wrote:
> I use the term "level" whenever I'm discussing permissions with people
> unfamiliar with the terminology. It makes sense since we already talk about
> decisions being made at the "library level" or "consortium level." People
> would likely understand without a lot of confusion that they're only able to
> effect things at their level or below.
>

"Level" makes a lot of sense, yes.  That actually has the added
benefit of having a meaning very close to the same as you describe
when talking about a directed graph (and, in particular, an adjacency
list, as the org hierarchy is currently implemented).  It's not
perfect, as in the technical context it would mean "exactly the named
level" instead of "the named level or below", but it doesn't fall into
the same class of confusion we'd get from "breadth" vs "depth".  I can
definitely support either "level" or "range."  Thanks for the input!

--miker

> Jason
>
> --
> Jason Boyer, IT Specialist
> Jackson County Public Library
> 303 W Second St
> Seymour, IN 47274
>
> jasonb at myjclibrary.org
> p (812) 522-3412 ext. 227
> f (812) 522-5456
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Dan Wells <dbw2 at calvin.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Mike for providing an interesting perspective on this.  I will
>> agree that 'range' is certainly better than 'depth' and would be a
>> worthwhile change, though I still prefer 'breadth', notwithstanding its
>> technical usage (and I might also add that my knowledge of directed graphs
>> isn't that great ;).
>>
>> As another option, how about 'scope'?  I recognize it also has developer
>> baggage, of course.
>>
>> I would be happy to hear from any non-developers reading along as to which
>> term seems most clear, but would personally be satisfied with any of these
>> three options.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>> >>> On 1/28/2010 at 10:14 AM, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hrm... both "depth" and "breadth", to me, require an understanding of
>> > directed graphs.  If the intent is to make the language more accessible
>> > to
>> > non-developers then perhaps "range" is a better choice?  That would also
>> > avoid confusion to the developers for whom "depth" and "breadth" mean
>> > something specific.
>> >
>> > As for actually making the change, it would be a fairly simple patch
>> > adjusting any labels, as I would suggest we avoid changing the code
>> > itself
>> > -- a much bigger and more painful change with little benefit, IMO.
>> >
>> > Eh?
>> >
>> > --miker
>> >
>> > On Jan 28, 2010 9:54 AM, "Dan Wells" <dbw2 at calvin.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I fully agree that "depth" as it is used in the permission setup is not
>> > a
>> > clear word choice.  It gives the impression of working down, that is,
>> > the
>> > "deeper" you set it, the greater your permissions, and this is not the
>> > case.
>> >  If it is still possible and not horribly difficult to change this, I
>> > think
>> > "breadth" is a better word choice and easier to understand, as it seems
>> > clear that a permission breadth of 'Consortium' provides greater
>> > abilities
>> > than a breadth of 'Library', or something similar.
>> >
>> > My two cents,
>> > Dan
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> > ****************************************************************************
>> > *****
>> > Daniel Wells, Library Programmer Analyst dbw2 at calvin.edu
>> > Hekman Library at Calvin College
>> > 616.526.7133
>> >
>> >>>> On 1/26/2010 at 5:23 PM, Victoria Bush <vbush at ilstu.edu> wrote: >
>> > Thanks, Jason. That did the...
>>
>
>



-- 
Mike Rylander
 | VP, Research and Design
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com