Am Samstag, den 04.03.2006, 17:07 +0100 schrieb Christian Neumair: > Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2006, 11:12 +0100 schrieb Alexander Larsson: > > On Mon, 2005-12-26 at 01:26 +0100, Christian Neumair wrote: > > > The attached patch is meant to implement recursive file permission > > > changes [1]. I'm eagerly awaiting feedback, in particular whether the > > > GUI offers enough usability for you. > > > > > > [1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44767 > > > > I must say I much prefer your later blog posting. I still don't think > > its ideal though. Also, i very much like this: > > http://www.foo-projects.org/~benny/tmp/thunar-permissions-chooser-20060108.png > > > > One thing I think that can help a lot, both in the normal UI and in the > > recursive apply mode is to separate out executable into two widgets, one > > that handles "executability of files" and one that handles "listability > > of folders" (the last one won't be visible if you only select files of > > course). That way you don't have to know what executable bit means for > > folders, and you could set different execute bit for folders and files > > in the recursive case. > > I agree that the Thunar guys did a very good job at the permissions GUI. > > > Also, i don't think instant apply recursive apply of permissions is > > right. Its gonna be very slow to apply each change you make (you might > > want to make multiple changes), and you can easily loose a lot of data > > (permission settings) if you accidentally do something wrong. > > I disagree that Instant-Apply is wrong here. In Thunar, you're asked > after each change whether to apply it recursively or not. I think we > have two user groups: Those who know precisely what they're doing, and > those who have a basic glimpse about what granting permissions means in > practice but don't know about UNIX permissions. We should offer > something to both, with the basic dialog being identical to Thunar's. > I'll explain the advanced mode down below. > > > My current opinion is that we should take the thunar dialog, with is > > pretty similar to yours, but with the execute bit moved out of the > > access dropdowns. It also has IMHO better layout and nice icons. > > To this we add: > > 1) Checkboxes under group and other access that says "Allow these users > > to list files in folders" (or something like that). (We assume that > > users always wants the execute bit set for themselves on folder, but if > > a selected file has this off we can add it in so that the user can fix > > it). > > 2) Add an "Apply to files in enclosed folders" (want better string?) > > button that applies the permission settings to files and folders inside > > selected folders. > > 3) Add a "details" button > > > > Some notes: > > > > We don't want "None" in the list of alternatives for the user > > permissions. There is no need to make your own files non-readable to > > you. Nor is there any need to make your own folders non-listable to you. > > > > The execute checkbox toggles all execute perms. I don't think there is a > > need for more detailed exectute rights in the standard perms view. > > I agree. > > > The advanced dialog looks a bit like yours, but without the subfolder > > settings. Instead it has two columns for the execute bit "execute file" > > and "list folder contents", and there is a recursive apply button. > > > > Also, maybe we should have the advanced widget ("details") appear in the > > same place as normal widget instead of its own dialog. Dialogs from > > dialogs is a bit weird, and i think it makes sense to "switch to > > advanced mode" even if looks a bit like tab-in-tab. > > I'd prefer a chmod GUI which allows you to enter something like +rwX and > displays the octal permissions, umask etc. I don't see any target > audience for an advanced mode similar to that one proposed in my blog, > but maybe I just don't know our user base well enough. Maybe you could > explain under which circumstances it would be useful? For an implementation and short discussion of that approach, please refer to [1], additional comments are probably scattered on [1b],[2],[3]. [1] http://blogs.gnome.org/view/cneumair/2006/03/06/0 [1b] http://blogs.gnome.org/view/cneumair/2006/03/06/0#comments [2] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44767#c40 [3] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2006-March/msg00033.html -- Christian Neumair <chris gnome-de org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
