hatman: HatMan, my alter ego and face on the 'net (Default)
[personal profile] hatman

Title:
Password protect posts so non-DW friends can be included

Area:
entries

Summary:
Add an additional security option between "public" and "friends" where the post is viewable to anyone with the correct password. This would allow users to include friends without DW accounts in non-public posts.

Description:
It's been a few years since this was last suggested ( http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/147407.html ). Maybe opinions have changed.

WordPress has a password protected post option ( http://en.support.wordpress.com/posts/post-visibility/#password-protect-a-post ). A post with this security setting is viewable to anyone with the correct password. The public and RSS readers can see that a new post is there, but you must enter the password to read the actual content. This allows you to have non-public content available to friends who don't have an account on the site (or who use OpenID). I'd like to see something akin to that implemented here.

A modification suggested in the comments last time would also include the option to make the post (including password prompt) viewable only by direct link.

Having it not only gives you greater control over who outside the site can see your content, it might just pull in new users. They'd come to the site to read your posts, see how it works, and maybe just be tempted to try it themselves.

So it works like this:

Between "Public" and "Access List," there would be an additional security option labeled "Password Protected." When you select that, you enter a password. When the post goes up, you have what amounts to a cut tag hiding the post's contents (including comments) until the reader enters the correct password. An additional sub-option (available via checkbox, perhaps?) would allow you to make even the password prompt viewable via direct link only. Crossposts would link back to DW, where readers would be prompted for the password.

Poll #15787 Password protect posts so non-DW friends can be included
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 50


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
8 (16.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
8 (16.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
23 (46.0%)

(I have no opinion)
11 (22.0%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

hebethen: (Default)
[personal profile] hebethen

Title:
Small change for filter option when posting an entry

Area:
Post an entry

Summary:
Right now, in order to designate an entry as viewable by a certain filter, one must select 'Custom' from the 'Show this entry to:' dropdown menu. Only then do the individual filters show up as checkboxes. I think it would be clearer if the option said something like 'Access Filter', or if the filter checkboxes were visible from the get-go.

Description:
Well, I'm not sure how much more I can say about it! Just that it's not very clear to a first-time user that there are Filters, and I remember I was a bit confused as to the wording of that dropdown menu option myself. If it's just a text change, it's a pretty minor thing and I don't think there are any drawbacks or problems.

On the other hand, listing out the filters and their checkboxes right up front would also solve the issue of clarity, and streamline the selection of a filter. I never really saw the point of having filters hidden until you select 'Custom', from a user's point of view. But I understand that it's probably more complicated, codingwise, to (e.g.) have the checkboxes right there and make the dropdown automatically jump to 'Custom' when the user clicks a checkbox.

Poll #13651 Small change for filter option when posting an entry
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 31


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
6 (19.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
13 (41.9%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
3 (9.7%)

(I have no opinion)
9 (29.0%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

syderia: lotus Syderia (Default)
[personal profile] syderia

Title:
Default security settings for tags

Area:
security settings

Summary:
Journals would still have a global default access setting, but it would be possible to set other access settings for specif tags - those settings would then override the default when chosen on an entry.

Description:
In case two tags were chosen with different settings, the more restrictive one would be picked.
The possibility to manually set the access level for the entry would stay there and would override any tag-specific level.

This might be a nice paid feature. The number of tags that could be associated to another access setting could be limited (and scaled depending on the type of account).

Poll #11555 Default security settings for tags
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 45


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
11 (24.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
2 (4.4%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
15 (33.3%)

(I have no opinion)
16 (35.6%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.2%)

starwatcher: Western windmill, clouds in background, trees around base. (Default)
[personal profile] starwatcher

Title:
Link to "Manage Custom Filters" on "Post an Entry" page.

Area:
Posting

Summary:
When one is posting and selects 'Custom Filters', it may be necessary to create a new
one. Instead of going to 'Site Map' and then to 'Manage Custom Filters', I think it would
be handy to see a direct link to that area when we click on 'Custom Filters'.

Description:
For my own reasons, I'm creating a lot of one-person custom filters, on an as-needed
basis. When I go to post, I need two extra steps -- click on 'Site Map', click on
'Manage Custom Filters'. I think it would be neat to avoid one of those steps. When
I get to 'Post To:' and click on 'Custom Filters', it would be handy if, in the pop-ups
of the Custom Filters available, there was a direct link to the 'Manage Custom Filters'
page.

Potential drawback: there is already a lot of information on the 'Post an Entry' page;
this would be another piece of info to interact with, then accept or reject. BUT, as
I envision it, this link wouldn't even show up unless the user clicked 'Custom
Filters', so it wouldn't affect the average user unless he/she needed it -- and then
it would be very handy.

I can't think of another way to implement this idea, but maybe the DW super-mind could
come up with something even more convenient.

Thank you.

StarWatcher

Poll #7716 Link to "Manage Custom Filters" on "Post an Entry" page.
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 60


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
38 (63.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
1 (1.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
5 (8.3%)

(I have no opinion)
15 (25.0%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (1.7%)

msilverstar: (Default)
[personal profile] msilverstar

Title:
Disable access filters when you do not grant access

Area:
user interface

Summary:
There are both access and subscription filter columns in the "Modify [[username]]'s status in your circle?" It's way too easy to accidentally check the access filters.

Description:
The Dreamwidth separation of access vs. subscriptions is very useful, so the modify status interface should make the same distinction, and separate the filters more clearly.

Presumably, there are users who desperately need to save user names on access filters even without granting them access, and likewise with subscriptions. While I can't think of any reasons, there always are. A checkbox for overriding the default might solve that problem.

Poll #6500 Disable access filters when you do not grant access
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 40


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
10 (25.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
9 (22.5%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
21 (52.5%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

siderea: (Default)
[personal profile] siderea

Title:
DW/LJ filter sync on Grant Access for Crosspost Users

Area:
Granting, crossposting

Summary:
If one has cross-posting set up, the page http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/circle/add?user=GRANTEE&action=access should default to proposing the same group memberships as friends filter memberships on the cross-posting site.

Description:
The Problem:

For folks who make heavy use of access filters, cross-posting between LJ and DW doesn't work out so great, which is actually discouraging transitioning to DW.

Right now, if you have cross-posting set up between LJ and DW, the only way to keep your filters in sync is to do so manually. In addition to being a really irritating hassle, this has proven to be highly error prone.

I have now lost count of the times that I have clicked through someone else's DW xpost link over on LJ in a locked post only to discover that I didn't have access on DW because the author had had their filter lists on DW get out of sync with LJ: I was on the filter to see the post on LJ, but not on DW. This includes cases where the author had turned off commenting on the LJ post to drive commenting to DW.

In all the cases where I have delicately pointed out, "Hey, I can see this on LJ, not DW; are you sure I'm supposed to see it at all?" the response was, "Oops! Crap! You're supposed to be on that filter!"

This is actually frustrating migrations to DW -- if when given the choice to comment on DW or LJ, and only LJ consistently works, one's friends will strongly prefer commenting on LJ, and effectively resist using DW.

A Solution:

This would actually be a pretty easy problem to somewhat ameliorate, if not entirely solve, for the common case of someone trying to keep a DW journal and an LJ journal in sync.

Here on DW, the interface for granting read access to another user is http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/circle/add?user=USERNAME&action=access. This page not only allows one to grant read access, but shows the user a list of their subscription filters for optional assignment. By default they're all unchecked.

Instead, if (and only if) someone (USER@DW) has crossposting set up (to USER@LJ), and in the sole circumstance they were granting access (on tick of the "grant" box) the page could use their stored tokens (or prompt for them) to log in to LJ to see if (1) the USER@LJ is friends with an account of the same username as GRANTEE@DW, i.e. GRANTEE@LJ, and if so, (2) get the memberships of GRANTEE@LJ in USER@LJ's filters, and wherever those LJ filter names correspond to USER@DW's filter names, default those checkboxes to checked.

Put another way, if you have crossposting set up, when you go to grant access to someone, if your crosspost account is friends with someone of the same name over on LJ, DW will propose (not require, just default) to add them to any same-named filters here on DW.

Additionally: if one visits that page to //modify// filters (the target user is already granted access) it would be nice if the page listed in text one's LJ filters that user is a member of, ideally in a column next to the tickyboxes for fast visual comparison.

Additionally: if (again the original case of on granting) they are members of any filters over on LJ that don't have corresponding filters on DW, the interface should simply state them in text, along side the list of tickyboxes, i.e. "On LJ, you have a friend named 'Fred', and he's a member of the following filters."

Optional variations: Add a boolean field, "Sync filters", on a crosspost record, where if it's ticked, that crosspost relationship will try to do the above, and if not, not.

Some Assumptions:

That the case of granting access to someone who has the same username on both LJ and DW, and whom one has already "friended" over on LJ, is incredibly, incredibly common. Thus anything which assists filter management in this case is actually addressing a large chunk of the problem, even if it doesn't work in other cases (see next), so long as it's not detrimental in any of them.

That the case of granting access to someone who is a "friend" on LJ, but who has chosen a different username here on DW is not all that uncommon, but dwarfed by the prevalence of the previous case, therefore it would still be helpful enough to trouble to do this. (Heck, someone could go all out and provide a field on the page in question, "This DW user is the same as this LJ user: [field]" and allow the grantor to specify, for purposes of populating those filter tickyboxes, which user the grantee should be considered the same as, making this solution extend to this case, too.)

That the case of true name-space collisions (one is friends with fred@LJ on LJ and grants to fred@DW on DW, and these are two completely different people) is both so rare and so notable, that the user can be trusted to notice that's what's going on, and untick tickyboxes as necessary.

That for people migrating between LJ and DW, the majority of filter-assignment happens when they grant to an LJ friend who has created a DW account. While people may be creating new filters on either platform and going through and adding to them at any time, that is more rare than assignment on granting. Thus helping keep filters in sync just on initial granting addresses a large chunk of the problem. While it might be nice if we could also support //ongoing// synchronization of filters, that's a much harder problem, and we can solve 75% of the problem without going to all that work.

Implementation Details:

If LJ doesn't have an API for getting at that info, I suggest scraping http://www.livejournal.com/friends/add.bml?user=USERNAME for the filter list and membership.

As I've described the feature (interface responsive to changes in field values such as the "grant access" tickybox, maybe a field for corresponding username, prompting for LJ login tokens), either AJAX is required or the functionality of the page would have to be broken across several pages.

Over the Top Elaboration Discouraged:

If we really wanted to go all out with xpost filter sync, we could have a whole interface here on DW for manually assigning correspondences between one's DW filters and one's LJ filters, as part of one's xpost settings; e.g. "my 'fam' filter on LJ == my 'family' filter on DW". That seems to me like doing 900% of the work for 10% of the benefit, so unless the previous more modest suggestion were to be implemented and prove wildly loved and important, I'd skip it.

It would be kinda neat to have a "xpost filter audit" page that one could go, that would basically diff one's filter lists, and report any of one's grantees whose filter assignments differ between DW and LJ, so one can do something about it manually if one feels like. But at this juncture that would be feature creep.

Poll #5573 DW/LJ filter sync on Grant Access for Crosspost Users
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 44


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
10 (22.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
2 (4.5%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
14 (31.8%)

(I have no opinion)
18 (40.9%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

florahart: (writing)
[personal profile] florahart

Title:
Changing one person's access to multiple filters

Area:
filters

Summary:
I know the option already exists to go to an individual user's profile and choose to modify subscription/access. However, this never occurs to me when I look at the filters editing page (I mean, it will now, since I have made this suggestion, probably...), and it seems like it would be an easy thing to point out there.

Description:
So, when I allow access for someone, or for that matter when I subscribe to them, I may not know them all that well, and therefore may not yet be prepared to give them access to tight filters, or may not know, because *they* have certain kinds of posts locked, that I want to put them on such and such reading filter. Not that I use reading filters myself, but I assume this would apply for folks who do.

So I'm just thinking, when I go to edit filters, what I get, which seems to be a pretty direct reproduction of the LJ approach, is a list of my filters, and then a list of all the people available, and when I choose a filters, a list of who is currently on it. However, it may be that what I want to do is add Jane and Mary, whom I have come to interact with quite often since I initially subscribed/allowed, to three of my access filters and two of my reading filters.

It would in fact be a lot easier to do this by going to Jane's and Mary's profiles and modifying subscription/access, but there's nothing about this option on the filter-managing page. I'm just thinking it would make a ton of sense for that page (those pages, I guess, one for access and one for subscriptions) to point this out for those of us who fail to store this information in our brains. Just a sentence up top: if you want to [change access to/change reading filters for] multiple filters for a particular user, go to http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/circle/add?user=florahart&action=access (or action=subscribe for the subscriptions page) for that user.

There's certainly a prettier way to say that last part, but I mean, following the example of using my own username to show what the url looks like, as is in place all over the site? Or, a description of how to find the button in the ...circle menu? is that what it's called?

What this solves: me not remembering it's possible to go back to that list of filters I get when I give access/subscribe in the first place.

Drawbacks: More words on the page could just confuse people and maybe the problem isn't a problem for enough people for that to be worthwhile.

Poll #2858 Changing one person's access to multiple filters
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 35


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
17 (48.6%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
1 (2.9%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (5.7%)

(I have no opinion)
14 (40.0%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.9%)

zellieh: kitten looking shocked, openmouthed, text: WTF? (What the fuck?) (Default)
[personal profile] zellieh

Title:
Auto-add and auto-update filters

Area:
reading filters

Summary:
Create an option to auto-add users to filters and/or auto-update existing filters, according to rules specified by the account holder

Description:
Some of my filters are based on information that DW already has, for example: timezones, geographic location. (Other options people might like to sort filters by could be age, school, or gender.) I'd like to use that public information to auto-construct some of my filters.

I'd like to be able to:
1. Auto-construct some filters by telling DW, for example, to put [all personal journals from people in the UK] in my "UK filter".
2. And then I'd like to have the option for DW to add new people to that filter automatically when I subscribe to and/or give access to new people.

Obviously, this wouldn't be a perfect system. It would only use info that is public, so there'd still be people you'd have to manually add in, but if it could save time by sorting the people with public info into filters for you automatically, that would be a help.

Poll #2709 Auto-add and auto-update filters
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
9 (30.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
6 (20.0%)

(I have no opinion)
14 (46.7%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (3.3%)

ilyena_sylph: picture of Labyrinth!faerie with 'careful, i bite' as text (Default)
[personal profile] ilyena_sylph

Title:
Export of access (or subscription) filter lists

Area:
access/subscribe

Summary:
I'd love a way to pull lists of my various filters to compare them.

Description:
I build filters as the whim strikes me, and I have filters imported from LJ that don't quite do what I want any more. Between the two, it means that I have a really hard time remembering who I've got in what filter. There are some I want to have overlap of people, there are some that I really don't but they might be because at some point it sounded like a good idea.

And the boxes in the filter management area don't show me enough of the list at once for me not to forget who all is in the upper part or the lower part as I'm working.

It would be totally awesome if there was some way that I could copy even just a plaintext list of who is in what filter so that I could easily compare/contrast the lists and really figure out who I want to have where without having to click back and forth through the entire interface multiple times.

I can't code at all, so I have no idea how this could be done, or what would be the best way, but that's what I would like to have.

Poll #2622 Export of access (or subscription) filter lists
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 44


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
28 (63.6%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (15.9%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
9 (20.5%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Profile

Dreamwidth Suggestions

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
23456 7 8
9 101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom