'Default' Access Groups

[zorkian]

Title:
'Default' Access Groups

Area:
access groups

Summary:
I have several access groups that I put just about everybody in, and it would be convenient to be able to say 'these groups are default -- everybody I give access to should go in here automatically'.

Description:
The summary basically says it all. Some things I would note:

* You can remove people from the groups. So if you do want to give access to someone and not have them in your defaults, you can grant access, then go remove them from the groups they shouldn't be in.

* The UI page that lets you grant access to someone and shows you your groups should show the default groups checked when it loads so you don't have to do it.

* Granting access through the AJAX pop-ups should automatically put people in the default groups.

But, as always, all of this can be discussed and changed through the process of suggestions. I put it to you, dear community!

Poll #2492 'Default' Access Groups

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 49

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
35 (71.4%)

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

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
14 (28.6%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[cheyinka]

As long as the behavior is consistent and clearly documented I'm for this, even though I doubt I'd use it myself.

[afuna]

Want, yes!

[msilverstar]

The main problem is that group management sucks, and needs significant repair. So I agree with you on this issue, and maybe this could be a stopgap measure, but it would be better to design a new interface that makes sense.

[mark]

I agree. Sadly, I am no use at designing UIs, but if you are offering or know someone who is interested, I'd be glad to do the implementation work (or find someone to do it) and generally shepherd the project along.

As it is, though, people with design experience are really hard to come by around here...

Edit: Not that experience is necessary. Read the above statement as 'people who are good at design and like to do it and want to volunteer for Dreamwidth are hard to find' regardless of whether they've ever done it or not.

[msilverstar]

That would be so good!

Before today, I might have volunteered, but I suddenly have what may be two paying gigs, so those come first. I do urge you to think of it as User Experience (UX) because it's not just UI or graphic design or IA or anything, it's all of it put together with the back end functionality.

I would be up for working with others to gather requirements and look at how other systems handle this multi-dimensional management stuff. I find Twitter's list UX surprisingly good, but that's probably operent conditioning from six years of using LJ's list interface, that is: the bar is set pretty low.

[triadruid]

Obviously I agree, but I'd rather we fixed the 'first' Default groups first before worrying about multiple ones.

[mark]

What do you mean? What's broken?

[triadruid]

The way that the context-menu doesn't utilize either the default reading OR access filter. It's incredibly frustrating to 'grant access' and then have to go back and check the tickybox in a whole other window! Or worse, forget for days/weeks to do so and then realize why your friend never seems to write anything... (I exaggerate because I'm only a browsing user, but Azz does not).

I realize not everyone thinks it should work this way, but it's much harder to 'notice' the users' absence than to remove their presence, IMO.

[afuna]

We have a bug open (and a patch submitted) for that! So it should be fixed soon enough.

[triadruid]

Much appreciated.

[sophie]

I'm also a bit confused about this.

[triadruid]

http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/219107.html

[sophie]

Fair enough; seems reasonable. If the multiple groups thing happens, then it would make sense to have the Default one selected by default too. But really, once that one is done this one will just be an extension, so it's not vital that one needs to be done first.