[pmwiki-users] global overview of passwords/authorizations

[Patrick R. Michaud]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:37:22PM -0400, Neil Herber wrote:
> Why not generate a table with the attributes marked? It would get away from
> Unix "confusion" and it would be easier to spot gaps. For example:
>
> || page name || attribute || upload || edit    || read ||
> || zxcv.zxcvzx  || group     || site      ||  page ||  ---    ||
> || zxcv.zxcvz2  || nopass  || site      ||  page ||  ---    ||
>
> Unfortunately, a "nopass" entry has the same visual weight as a password
> source like "group". It would be better to indicate "nopass" with something
> very lightweight (indicating unprotected) while still showing that it is an
> explicitly set override. Maybe just the letter "n" for nopass 

Or perhaps all-caps, thus "NOPASS" versus "group".  In general I find
the use of "nopass" to be relatively rare, and this would certainly make it
visually distinctive.

Is it important at all for an admin to see the id: (and eventually
group: ) values that may be placed in each password field, or is it a
sufficient start just to display which passwords have been set and
where they are set?

Lastly, as of beta50 a page with a read password automatically
has that password cascaded to any unset 'edit' and 'attr' fields--
any particular way we should indicate that?  For example, in

|| page name    || attribute || upload || edit  || read ||
|| zxcv.zxcvzx  || ---       || ---    || ---   || page ||
|| abcd.abcdef  || ---       || ---    || group || ---- ||

the zxcvzx page uses the per-page read password for attr/upload/edit
and the abcdef page uses the per-group password for attr.  So, maybe
something like ... ?

|| page name    || attribute || upload || edit   || read ||
|| zxcv.zxcvzx  || (page)    || (page) || (page) || page ||
|| abcd.abcdef  || (group)   || ---    || group  || ---- ||

> For really fancy effects, make the cell background color indicate the 
> state - green for protected and red for unprotected with yellow 
> for overridden protection.

We can do this, but I'm not sure I like the association of "red"
with "unprotected".  For some wikis, "unprotected" is just fine!  :-)

Maybe a monochromatic (i.e., shaded from white-to-green) approach?
Of course, it'll all be styled with css anyway, so skin designers 
and site administrators can pick whatever color scheme they want.

Pm