Add the ability for logged-in users to visibly sort the Tags Page by access level.

[marahmarie]

Title:
Add the ability for logged-in users to visibly sort the Tags Page by access level.

Area:
Styles

Summary:
There is currently a hidden feature on the Visible Tags Page: the ability to show the approximate access-level assigned to each tag. I would like DW to add CSS or a combination of JavaScript and CSS to all our journals to show the hidden feature to everyone who opts-in.

Description:
Currently the Visible Tags page shows all your tags in a single, alphabetically sorted list but does not *visibly* indicate which tags are used on private, access-list-only or public posts. So one day about a year ago I asked myself, "Why not?" and wound up writing CSS that exposed the access-level of all my private and access-list-only posts. This became a fantastic sorting system since I have no other way to tell what I've thrown where without using the Manage Tags page, which can be kind of awkward and time-consuming.

So a week ago I took this a little further and refined the CSS so that 1) only logged-in users see the access-levels alongside each tag and 2) logged-in users see the exact access level used on each tag - public, private, or access-list-only. Here's a screen cap of my current Visible Tags page using my latest CSS for it (logged-in view - logged-out you won't see any of the extra information shown in this screen cap):
http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll128/marahstest/expose_access-level_tags_page.jpg

What I'm humbly hoping for is this system of sorting tags by access-level, as seen in the screen cap, gets adapted site-wide either as the default view on the Visible Tags page (of course, it will be visible to logged-in users by access-level only) or else becomes an opt-in default option (which is where JavaScript would probably come into play; otherwise, this is a pure CSS hack).

There are a few possible issues with adapting this styling: 1) it may take more firepower to serve up the additional CSS (but I'm thinking it would not be enough to crash servers or do anything that dramatic as things stand; it's just hard to calculate how much this might slow things down without knowing how much firepower DW has to spare) and 2) there is currently an issue where if you use a tag at more than one access level (say you use your "cats" tag both publicly and on several access-list-only posts) it will get an HTML tag indicating it's for public use only, which means DW won't be able to style it with the specific CSS to reflect that you used it three times publicly and three times for access list readers. Until that split-usage quirk is fixed, my idea makes for an imprecise-at-best look at how your tags are being used. But I think it's still better than not having any sorting system in place at all; in the meantime you can still use your Manage Tags page to drill down more precisely.

If this were to get adopted, I could see future improvements to it such as sorting tags by access level on the Visible Tags Page instead of sorting them entirely alphabetically as we do now, adding the ability to style each access level separately, and so on.

Poll #11751 Add the ability for logged-in users to visibly sort the Tags Page by access level.

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 47

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
15 (31.9%)

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

Shouldn't be implemented.
3 (6.4%)

(I have no opinion)
28 (59.6%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.1%)

Comments

[swaldman]

Note that it's already possible for somebody to use CSS or a style layer to do this (as Marahmarie has done) - but it's probably a minority of users who have the knowhow to do it themselves.

I think that there are two seperate questions here:

1. Should the visibility level of tags be shown by default (as suggested)
2. Should there be a UI option to vary this default

I have no strong opinion on (1), and a minor aversion to (2).



It seems like something that would sit really nicely in some sort of gallery of style layers that just change individual things ("snippets"), that people could contribute to and others could use... that's way outside scope, though, and I've no idea whether there's a plan for such a thing :-)

[kyrielle]

My gut reaction is that I have an aversion to #1 as well - but I'm not sure it's a legitimate aversion. My issue is if someone looks at the tag and sees, as noted, its MOST public usage of the tag (is the tag public? yes it is. it's public because it's on at least one public post) and assumes that means things tagged with it are common knowledge (just because it's on public posts doesn't mean it's ONLY on public posts).

I think the tag level reflecting that the *tag* is public (which it is) rather than the number of posts under it that are public, is appropriate. But I don't want people to make assumptions.

That said, they COULD just click the tag and look at the posts, see the top one is public, and assume they all are. It's not like this exposes any information or allows any assumptions someone couldn't already make if they wanted to, even without knowing how to re-style the page to see it.

[marahmarie]

I actually suggested both 1. and 2. (Trying to keep an open mind here but I don't care if it becomes opt-in or the default as long as it simply becomes available. I suggested opt-in mostly to save DW some bandwidth and to keep people from mistaking this feature for a security issue; the more people you expose this sort of feature to, the more might think so, so I say limit it to people who are willing to look into how and why it works and who can truly understand that it is not omg, bad).

I would like to know why you're aversive to 2. if you don't mind me picking your brain a little, since I think it would be the more, shall we say, diplomatic way to implement the idea, period?

[marahmarie]

I have the same problem with my idea as you do; if it were to be implemented (and I think it will be someday, but only after someone else comes along to write it up better than I did and really sell it to everyone here) the quirk with split-usage tags inheriting .visibility-public CSS really messes the intended spirit of it up.

I had considered posting yet another suggestion saying we need to fix that, too, but my take from rolling around in DW Dev and DW Styles last week with Swaldman et al to discus this very idea was that it would be 1) a major re-write of existing code, thus hard, time-consuming, and expensive to pull off and 2) might cause security issues of its own unless its done right. Granted, my wording is indeed murky and inexact on this, but that's the general gist of the whole thing - wait, let me look up the discussion...ah yes, it was here: http://dw-styles.dreamwidth.org/22250.html (linking to the entire post as-is because the entire discussion that follows revolves around the Suggestion you now see here).

I'm pretty much resigned to keeping it a pipe dream (and I was even before posting the Suggestion) because if it were to be done, it should be done right, which means split-usage has got to get fixed.

[swaldman]

I was averse to 2 because I didn't especially like the idea of adding more options to an already option-laden system. Having said that, it occurs to me this morning that this option might fit best in the style customization screens, which are already so full of confusing options that I'm not sure I care very much ;-) In which case, it would be nice to let people who don't code have the choice.

[swaldman]

it would be 1) a major re-write of existing code, thus hard, time-consuming, and expensive to pull off

Nope, it would be quite easy to do - and in fact can already be done by anybody who has the knowhow to write their own style layer.

[mokie]

This is what awaits me when I open the tag page on my LJ, and I miss it on other sites.

[cesy]

I'm not sure exactly what I want, but having some of this information more easily visible would be good, so long as it doesn't reveal anything that's not already available to the person in question.

[marahmarie]

As far as what's technically required to write the code for just one user, you're right, which I know from reading momijizukamori's reply to me last week (and I'm probably going to grab that code from her after all, because now I *am* permanently splitting the usage on at least one tag, and I want to style it/them accordingly, access-level-wise), but as far as multiplying the code site-wide to make it either the default or an opt-in option for everyone, I'm not sure what it would take nor how much of a burden it would be on DW's databases and/or servers (but I have to apologize for saying it would take as much as I suggested it might take; on a re-read of that thread, that is not yet supported by anything anyone has actually *said*).

Truth be told? It is the "multiplying of effect" that's got me worried this Suggestion will never fly unless someone, someday, can sell it better than I can. I got another (completely unrelated) idea shot down just the week before last when Denise wrote in her rejection that it would not be doable because it would require too much back-end power (no, that was not her exact wording on it, but yes, that's the same idea). So now I'm wary of suggesting *anything* that I think might even somewhat have that effect. But I love this idea so much I chanced it, anyway. My intuition tells me this Suggestion might very well qualify as "if implemented, will somewhat have that effect" (I'm surprised she let it pass through at all, to be quite honest).

wink wink indeed

[marahmarie]

So we need to streamline the customization screens to make things less confusing for everyone here overall...that's what you're saying, isn't it? Then the option my suggestion would add in would not make the whole page blow up in disarray or something. Right?

Sounds then like you might need to make a Suggestion of your own. ;-)

[marahmarie]

Was it always like that? I used LJ from 2005-2009 and/or through some of 2010 but I can't recall if their Manage Tags page always worked like that or not. But! That does look so much like something I've already seen or else simply dreamed about that the similarity is downright spooky. Thanks for the screen cap - I think something like that on our Manage Tags page would definitely make our lives helluva lot easier. :)

[mokie]

This is under Smooth Sailing, which I also love for its many free text boxes, but I think most styles now are just the list, or the option of list/multi-level list/cloud. Having the info on the tag page itself is so useful for me, though, that I wish they all offered the option.

So an enthusiastic YES! from me for this suggestion. :)

[ETA] As per cesy's comment: the style in the posted screencap is a mixed bag on privacy.

If you were to look at my LJ tags page (you can, if you'd like--it's the same username), you'd not see any tags used only on locked or private entries. If a tag is used on a mix of open and locked/private entries, though, the table does give you that information. For instance, both "private" (only me) and "under the cone of silence" (only friends) are invisible to me when I'm logged out. But I can still see that "aha!" (mixed public/friends) is used on one locked entry.

It's not much of an issue for me, but I imagine it might be for others.

[denise]

You guys aren't expected to try to figure that out. If it'll be a problem, we'll tell you.

[marahmarie]

As it's a simple CSS hack, nothing would be revealed except what each user of your DW already has access to. In yet another version of CSS I'm running for this, I've restricted visible access to the security levels of each tag to .logged-in .has-access only, which means you can't even see that the public tags are marked "(public)" on my journal unless 1) you're logged into DW and 2) I have already granted you access to the access-only-posts on my journal.

There are a many ways, thanks to the sheer amount of granular HTML classes DW gives us to work with (.subscribed, .has-access,.no-access, etc.) to code the CSS for this idea to accomplish one of five things:

1) you can write the code so that the public and your subscribers (logged-out DW users, non-DW users, and logged-in DW users who subscribe whom you have not granted access to) can see the word "(public)" alongside already-publicly visible tags, but they can't see any other access-restricted tags on your journal (because user CSS can't make already access-restricted tags visible to people without the proper access - that's controlled though other, non-CSS forms of code used on DW)
2) you can restrict the above behavior to just your subscribers
3) you can restrict the above behavior to just your access-list
4) or you can combine 2) and 3)
5) or hell, you can just code this so everyone who can see your journal at all can see what access-level each tag has based on what access level you have granted each person who sees it (and yes, this is basically the same as option 1) but now I'm making it more granular so every access level out there can see a visible security level next to each tag they're already allowed to see - option 1) was really just me laying the whole idea out for you)

Does that make sense?

No matter how you choose to roll the code up in the end, it's basically impossible to crack it to breach someone's privacy since it's CSS-based only. (The JavaScript I mentioned in the OP? That's just to turn it on in your DW if it becomes an opt-in option instead of the default).

[marahmarie]

I'm not following you. Even if in theory Denise were to say, "Yes, let's jump on that split-usage wonkiness and fix it right up for you so your suggestion works exactly as described/intended", it would still not work the way you're saying it would (and cesy has not said what you're saying, either, she was just unsure how it might work). It's CSS-only and it's access-level-based only, so unless I'm missing something obvious here (I did not realize LJ leaks info in that way in order to show you the security level of each split-usage tag, but my idea should not allow that if it's done right) it shouldn't be a mixed bag on privacy if this is implemented.

But I can still see that "aha!" (mixed public/friends) is used on one locked entry.

But that's not a privacy issue. Anything the public can see, your friends can see, too. :)

As per cesy's comment: the style in the posted screencap is a mixed bag on privacy.

My screen cap, the one I put in the OP? As I said in the sentence that preceded it, "logged-out you won't see any of the extra information shown in this screen cap". Logged-in you won't, either, unless I have already granted you the correct access level to do so (and of course, I haven't done so, since no one but me is allowed to see my private posts, and no one but my access-list is allowed to see access-list-only posts on my DW). That's why I posted a screen cap, to show everyone what they can't see otherwise so they can understand how my suggestion would look and work.

Just as a matter of fact...

[marahmarie]

How could the first, fourth and fifth posts in your screen cap be Public and not be visible to your friends, too? Looks like LJ has a bug to me. (In which case, LJ does not have a privacy leak as I stated in my last comment: in fact, LJ is doing the exact opposite and showing some of your public posts as not being available to your friends to read - and that's impossible, I'm sorry.)

(edit) Unless...OK, think I got it...tags worked the same way there as here until last week, so on LJ right now if you split a tag up amongst public and friends posts, the friends posts count won't show because the rounding up is done in the public post's column. Got it! It is indeed the same bug we had, and that's what the bug looks like once my Suggestion here is implemented there. This won't happen on DW now, though, because swaldman patched the bug last week, promise. :)

[mokie]

Didn't mean to be unclear here. I wasn't saying your suggestion should or shouldn't work a certain way. I pointed out a style at LJ that does something similar to your suggestion in case it's helpful in developing said suggestion, and followed up with a description of how that LJ style works regarding privacy, again in case it's helpful in developing this suggestion here. So it's Smooth Sailing that's the mixed bag, telling folks that you've used certain tags in entries they can't access.

(Screencap was also referring to that Smooth Sailing image.)

[cheyinka]

""But I can still see that "aha!" (mixed public/friends) is used on one locked entry."
But that's not a privacy issue. Anything the public can see, your friends can see, too. :)"

I think you've got it backwards - it's not that a friend can see both "aha!" entries, but that looking at that page logged out, right now, I can see that there is an "aha!" entry I can't see, because I'm not on mokie's reading list. Normally, unless I'm linked to a locked entry, or I notice that the last-posted time on the profile is later than the latest entry I can see, there's no way for me to know that someone has posted an entry I can't see.

[marahmarie]

Yes, you're exactly right. And I responded to that concern by explaining what the problem looks like in my next reply. It won't be a concern on DW any longer because swaldman has patched the bug that led to that specific problem.

[marahmarie]

Thanks for the clarification and sorry if I was being a little thick-headed there. Also, in response to where you asked me (now deleted, sorry if I did something to trip that) below (in the next comment thread) if "the proposed DW tag tweak would restrict the viewer to only their own access level--if I was logged out, I'd see just public tag info?" The answer's yes and yes, indeed! It's one of the happiest bug patches I've ever witnessed, honestly. :)

[mokie]

No worries! It was pure lack of caffeine on my part--I saw a second after posting that you'd already answered that. :)

[cheyinka]

Somehow I missed your reply, oops! Sorry :)

[marahmarie]

It's OK! Judging by how someone else had the exact same problem, I'm sure it's just the Intertubes keep getting clogged. :)

[ciaan]

I think I'm against the idea of anyone but me seeing what access levels are assigned to my tags. But giving more detailed info to me, that I am for.

[marahmarie]

Well, even via pure CSS you can do that. I currently have access levels set to display on my tags only if I am the one logged in and viewing my Tags page, using like just two lines of CSS code.