hiding functionality in ofbiz.

[hans_bakker]

In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
which can be really overwhelming.

We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:

for example:
1. beginner
2. intermediate
3. full feature.

The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
the system will be fully functional.

The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..

And the full feature will show everything what is there.

Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?

Regards,
Hans


--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Hi Hans:

IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know
if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in each
component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?

On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good
idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is "full
featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will
need to record functional capabilities on a component by component
level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!

Just my 2 cents.
Ruth

On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
> which can be really overwhelming.
>
> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>
> for example:
> 1. beginner
> 2. intermediate
> 3. full feature.
>
> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
> the system will be fully functional.
>
> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>
> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>
> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

I like the idea and have already suggested
http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)

Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended...
other priorities came along...
http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm

Jacques

From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Hans:
>
> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in
> each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>
> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is
> "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a component
> by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!
>
> Just my 2 cents.
> Ruth
>
> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>
>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>>
>> for example:
>> 1. beginner
>> 2. intermediate
>> 3. full feature.
>>
>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
>> the system will be fully functional.
>>
>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>>
>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>
>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>>

[David E. Jones-2]

Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user organizations?

If this were something configurable would it need to be on a screen level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed?

-David


On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> I like the idea and have already suggested
> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
>
> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended... other priorities came along...
> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Hans:
>>
>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>>
>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a component by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>> Ruth
>>
>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
>>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>>
>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>>>
>>> for example:
>>> 1. beginner
>>> 2. intermediate
>>> 3. full feature.
>>>
>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
>>> the system will be fully functional.
>>>
>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>>>
>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>>
>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <[hidden email]>
>I like the idea and have already suggested
> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
>
> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended...
> other priorities came along...
> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm

BTW this was an intent to translate a document David wrote once in 2004 (with Les Austin's help)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/site/old/feature-list.html

There are also plain copies around, just google for entire "Supports requests: for support, for features, for fixes, for
information, for quotes, for proposals"
Maybe some are updated...

Jacques

> Jacques
>
> From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>
>> Hi Hans:
>>
>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features
>> in each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>>
>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what
>> is "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a
>> component by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>> Ruth
>>
>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
>>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>>
>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>>>
>>> for example:
>>> 1. beginner
>>> 2. intermediate
>>> 3. full feature.
>>>
>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
>>> the system will be fully functional.
>>>
>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>>>
>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>>
>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>

[samhamilton]

This is starting to sound to me like user permissions that can be customised to show or hide functions? Then it can be customised if a organisation wants to or left default.
Rather than beginner, intermediate and full it would be role based e.g. Warehouse Picker, Warehouse Packer, PO Creator, PO Approver, Product Manager etc.

Sam



On 26 Apr 2011, at 02:09, David E Jones wrote:

>
> Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user organizations?
>
> If this were something configurable would it need to be on a screen level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed?
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> I like the idea and have already suggested
>> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
>> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
>>
>> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended... other priorities came along...
>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi Hans:
>>>
>>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>>>
>>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a component by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
>>>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>>>>
>>>> for example:
>>>> 1. beginner
>>>> 2. intermediate
>>>> 3. full feature.
>>>>
>>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
>>>> the system will be fully functional.
>>>>
>>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>>>>
>>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>>>
>>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>
>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too. If only we had the Moqui style authorization stuff in OFBiz... ;)

-David


On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote:

> This is starting to sound to me like user permissions that can be customised to show or hide functions? Then it can be customised if a organisation wants to or left default.
> Rather than beginner, intermediate and full it would be role based e.g. Warehouse Picker, Warehouse Packer, PO Creator, PO Approver, Product Manager etc.
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2011, at 02:09, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user organizations?
>>
>> If this were something configurable would it need to be on a screen level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> I like the idea and have already suggested
>>> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
>>> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
>>>
>>> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended... other priorities came along...
>>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Hi Hans:
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a component by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!
>>>>
>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>> Ruth
>>>>
>>>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
>>>>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>>>>>
>>>>> for example:
>>>>> 1. beginner
>>>>> 2. intermediate
>>>>> 3. full feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
>>>>> the system will be fully functional.
>>>>>
>>>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>>>>>
>>>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[hans_bakker]

I agree, this function is not so suitable for the order and facility
components.

I was however thinking of the product and party component. These are far
to big for the starting user and here it could be a big advantage to
show only a limited functionality....

Regards,
Hans


On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 22:57 -0700, David E Jones wrote:

> Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too. If only we had the Moqui style authorization stuff in OFBiz... ;)
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote:
>
> > This is starting to sound to me like user permissions that can be customised to show or hide functions? Then it can be customised if a organisation wants to or left default.
> > Rather than beginner, intermediate and full it would be role based e.g. Warehouse Picker, Warehouse Packer, PO Creator, PO Approver, Product Manager etc.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 Apr 2011, at 02:09, David E Jones wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user organizations?
> >>
> >> If this were something configurable would it need to be on a screen level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed?
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> >>
> >>> I like the idea and have already suggested
> >>> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
> >>> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
> >>>
> >>> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended... other priorities came along...
> >>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>> From: "Ruth Hoffman" <[hidden email]>
> >>>> Hi Hans:
> >>>>
> >>>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
> >>>>
> >>>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a component by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!
> >>>>
> >>>> Just my 2 cents.
> >>>> Ruth
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
> >>>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
> >>>>> which can be really overwhelming.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> for example:
> >>>>> 1. beginner
> >>>>> 2. intermediate
> >>>>> 3. full feature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
> >>>>> the system will be fully functional.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Hans
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[Malin Nicolas]

Instead of define securityGroup permission and increase the screen's
complexity, a solution will be define new portalPages by level :
  * PartyProfile_Beg
  * PartyProfile_Inter
  * PartyProfile_Full
And associate dedicate screen for all. At nereide we start a conversion
of ofbiz screen to full portlet management (party, order and marketing)
maybe a good reason to go back to see the project ?

Nicolas

Le 26/04/2011 08:27, Hans Bakker a écrit :

> I agree, this function is not so suitable for the order and facility
> components.
>
> I was however thinking of the product and party component. These are far
> to big for the starting user and here it could be a big advantage to
> show only a limited functionality....
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 22:57 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
>> Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too. If only we had the Moqui style authorization stuff in OFBiz... ;)
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> This is starting to sound to me like user permissions that can be customised to show or hide functions? Then it can be customised if a organisation wants to or left default.
>>> Rather than beginner, intermediate and full it would be role based e.g. Warehouse Picker, Warehouse Packer, PO Creator, PO Approver, Product Manager etc.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Apr 2011, at 02:09, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user organizations?
>>>>
>>>> If this were something configurable would it need to be on a screen level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea and have already suggested
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended... other priorities came along...
>>>>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Ruth Hoffman"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> Hi Hans:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a component by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
>>>>>>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for example:
>>>>>>> 1. beginner
>>>>>>> 2. intermediate
>>>>>>> 3. full feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
>>>>>>> the system will be fully functional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>

--
Nicolas MALIN
Consultant
Tél : [phone]
Site projet : http://www.neogia.org/
-------
Société LibrenBerry
Tél : [phone]
Site : http://www.librenberry.net/

[Adrian Crum-3]

The problem with the Party component isn't that it's too advanced for a
beginning user. The problem is it is poorly designed, or has no design
at all. The Party component has become a dumping ground for all kinds of
things that don't belong there. Not only does that make it hard to use,
it also makes it dependent on every other component in the project.

-Adrian

On 4/25/2011 11:27 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> I agree, this function is not so suitable for the order and facility
> components.
>
> I was however thinking of the product and party component. These are far
> to big for the starting user and here it could be a big advantage to
> show only a limited functionality....
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
>
> On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 22:57 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
>> Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too. If only we had the Moqui style authorization stuff in OFBiz... ;)
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> This is starting to sound to me like user permissions that can be customised to show or hide functions? Then it can be customised if a organisation wants to or left default.
>>> Rather than beginner, intermediate and full it would be role based e.g. Warehouse Picker, Warehouse Packer, PO Creator, PO Approver, Product Manager etc.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Apr 2011, at 02:09, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user organizations?
>>>>
>>>> If this were something configurable would it need to be on a screen level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed?
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea and have already suggested
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended... other priorities came along...
>>>>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Ruth Hoffman"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> Hi Hans:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a component by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz community if you ask me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
>>>>>>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for example:
>>>>>>> 1. beginner
>>>>>>> 2. intermediate
>>>>>>> 3. full feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
>>>>>>> the system will be fully functional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>

[BJ Freeman]

I agree that many application are a hog pog, no business sense to them,
just functionality.
I vote for Roles permissions, with role groups. This way a company can
define  a beginner, to any roles and/or groups they want.

But first I think a definition, of the intutiveness of the UI should be
addressed, which goes against the current thinking of just putting up
functtinoality based on the Enitity layout.

If the business flow is in the UI there won't be much need for hiding
functionality since the more complex functions would be naturally hidden.

So if the permissions are in the menu then you don't have to go down
into the pages, though one can. Just have to have permission on the
pages which has sort of fallen through the cracks.

This should be done at the Menu level as a I suggested many years ago.

Adrian Crum sent the following on 4/26/2011 7:20 AM:

> The problem with the Party component isn't that it's too advanced for a
> beginning user. The problem is it is poorly designed, or has no design
> at all. The Party component has become a dumping ground for all kinds of
> things that don't belong there. Not only does that make it hard to use,
> it also makes it dependent on every other component in the project.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 4/25/2011 11:27 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> I agree, this function is not so suitable for the order and facility
>> components.
>>
>> I was however thinking of the product and party component. These are far
>> to big for the starting user and here it could be a big advantage to
>> show only a limited functionality....
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 22:57 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
>>> Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too. If only we had the
>>> Moqui style authorization stuff in OFBiz... ;)
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is starting to sound to me like user permissions that can be
>>>> customised to show or hide functions? Then it can be customised if a
>>>> organisation wants to or left default.
>>>> Rather than beginner, intermediate and full it would be role based
>>>> e.g. Warehouse Picker, Warehouse Packer, PO Creator, PO Approver,
>>>> Product Manager etc.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 Apr 2011, at 02:09, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go
>>>>> in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user
>>>>> organizations?
>>>>>
>>>>> If this were something configurable would it need to be on a screen
>>>>> level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed?
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the idea and have already suggested
>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize
>>>>>> features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended...
>>>>>> other priorities came along...
>>>>>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Ruth Hoffman"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Hi Hans:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does someone
>>>>>>> know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic features in
>>>>>>> each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is
>>>>>>> a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what is
>>>>>>> "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a
>>>>>>> minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a
>>>>>>> component by component level. A much needed addition to the OFBiz
>>>>>>> community if you ask me!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much
>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function
>>>>>>>> levels:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for example:
>>>>>>>> 1. beginner
>>>>>>>> 2. intermediate
>>>>>>>> 3. full feature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components
>>>>>>>> however
>>>>>>>> the system will be fully functional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not
>>>>>>>> everything..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Thanks Adrian.
IMO, that needed to be said by an insider.
Regards,
Ruth

On 4/26/11 10:20 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> The problem with the Party component isn't that it's too advanced for
> a beginning user. The problem is it is poorly designed, or has no
> design at all. The Party component has become a dumping ground for all
> kinds of things that don't belong there. Not only does that make it
> hard to use, it also makes it dependent on every other component in
> the project.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 4/25/2011 11:27 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>> I agree, this function is not so suitable for the order and facility
>> components.
>>
>> I was however thinking of the product and party component. These are far
>> to big for the starting user and here it could be a big advantage to
>> show only a limited functionality....
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 22:57 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
>>> Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too. If only we had the
>>> Moqui style authorization stuff in OFBiz... ;)
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Sam Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is starting to sound to me like user permissions that can be
>>>> customised to show or hide functions? Then it can be customised if
>>>> a organisation wants to or left default.
>>>> Rather than beginner, intermediate and full it would be role based
>>>> e.g. Warehouse Picker, Warehouse Packer, PO Creator, PO Approver,
>>>> Product Manager etc.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 Apr 2011, at 02:09, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it even possible to have a single decision about what would go
>>>>> in each level, or would this tend to vary in different user
>>>>> organizations?
>>>>>
>>>>> If this were something configurable would it need to be on a
>>>>> screen level, on a form field level, or something even more detailed?
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the idea and have already suggested
>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/rrre2cslfou32vnp
>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/7wzti5asolef5njz)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also I tend to agree with Ruth: the difficulties is to categorize
>>>>>> features before, I begin in French long time ago, never ended...
>>>>>> other priorities came along...
>>>>>> http://www.les7arts.com/assist/OFBiz/Principales%20Caracteristiques%20Fonctionnelles.htm 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Ruth Hoffman"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Hi Hans:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO, you would just be adding to the confusion. How does
>>>>>>> someone know if they are a beginner? And, what are the basic
>>>>>>> features in each component? Who decides basic vs. full featured?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, now that I'm thinking about it, maybe this is
>>>>>>> a good idea. In the process of deciding what is basic and what
>>>>>>> is "full featured" you will need to do some documenting. At a
>>>>>>> minimum you will need to record functional capabilities on a
>>>>>>> component by component level. A much needed addition to the
>>>>>>> OFBiz community if you ask me!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents.
>>>>>>> Ruth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/25/11 11:50 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:
>>>>>>>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much
>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function
>>>>>>>> levels:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for example:
>>>>>>>> 1. beginner
>>>>>>>> 2. intermediate
>>>>>>>> 3. full feature.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components
>>>>>>>> however
>>>>>>>> the system will be fully functional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not
>>>>>>>> everything..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>

[Paul Foxworthy]

Hi Hans,

I agree there's a very real problem, but I don't think this is the solution.

Microsoft introduced incredible shrinking menus to Windows and to the Office applications, so that "beginners" had less to see. The intention was to give you the "most used" features. Trouble is, any individual needs the most used features Microsoft thought they needed, plus one more. And that one more was different for everybody. In order to navigate to the one more feature, everyone had to break out of "beginner" mode, and navigate and understand the complete system.

The result was that the "beginner" mode added complexity and noise, without providing any benefit to most of the people it was supposed to help.

I think the right answer needs much more work than just putting menu items into three buckets. There should be visual representations of a workflow, so it is easy and predictable to see what's next. As Sam said, it would be better to base what people see on the role they perform, rather than arbitrary categories.

Cheers

Paul Foxworthy

Hans Bakker-2 wrote

In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
which can be really overwhelming.

We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:

for example:
1. beginner
2. intermediate
3. full feature.

The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
the system will be fully functional.

The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..

And the full feature will show everything what is there.

Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?

Regards,
Hans


--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.

[Jacques Le Roux]

I included  part of this discussion in my last answer in the "New icons" thread on dev ML, please see my POV there.

In few words, I agree that roles are the best solution at the enterprise level but not for individuals. The old concept of
beginners, intermediate, expert levels is maybe not the right solution as it has not the flexilibity needed. The best would be to
combine the roles and the liability for individual users to chose their own sets of features. For instance as an admin whit all
rights, I may want to not see some components and would like to be able to hide them w/out hiding it for all users (as we can with
the app-bar-display attribute in the webapp element in ofbiz-component.xml). I like how Firefox allows me to add/remove buttons in
the buttons bar for instance.

Jacques

From: "Paul Foxworthy" <[hidden email]>

> Hi Hans,
>
> I agree there's a very real problem, but I don't think this is the solution.
>
> Microsoft introduced incredible shrinking menus to Windows and to the Office
> applications, so that "beginners" had less to see. The intention was to give
> you the "most used" features. Trouble is, any individual needs the most used
> features Microsoft thought they needed, plus one more. And that one more was
> different for everybody. In order to navigate to the one more feature,
> everyone had to break out of "beginner" mode, and navigate and understand
> the complete system.
>
> The result was that the "beginner" mode added complexity and noise, without
> providing any benefit to most of the people it was supposed to help.
>
> I think the right answer needs much more work than just putting menu items
> into three buckets. There should be visual representations of a workflow, so
> it is easy and predictable to see what's next. As Sam said, it would be
> better to base what people see on the role they perform, rather than
> arbitrary categories.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul Foxworthy
>
>
> Hans Bakker-2 wrote:
>>
>> In general it is accepted that OFBiz is having too much functionality
>> which can be really overwhelming.
>>
>> We are thinking about introducing a user preference in function levels:
>>
>> for example:
>> 1. beginner
>> 2. intermediate
>> 3. full feature.
>>
>> The beginner will only see the basic features in the components however
>> the system will be fully functional.
>>
>> The intermediate person will see more functions but not everything..
>>
>> And the full feature will show everything what is there.
>>
>> Anybody any opinions or thoughts about this?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
>> Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
>> Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
>>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/hiding-functionality-in-ofbiz-tp3473417p3482830.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.