Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33

• 05-23-2008, 11:15 AM

  7148

  Chief_Apricot Joined about 5 years ago Toronto Posts 4,265

  Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 General background Each member in your database has a personal webpage - so-called 'member profile page'. This page can be made accessible to other people on your website - and they can find and access it either via a Member directory or from a post/comment/reply on a forum or blog page made by that member. Access to this page can be turned on or off by the administrator - and then adjusted for some individual member records - by administrator and by member himself. Furthermore, administrator can set the default settings for each field - which apply to all new records. Change in version 2.33 In the past, each field had two settings: Public access / No access. If access was set to Public by administrator, each member could change it to No Access. If it was set to No access, members could not change it to be Public access. Two frequent requests we were receiving: 1) One more level of access: Members access. For example, a member might make his email address hidden from public but accessible to members.  2) Ability for the administrator to set the default setting on more cautious side - but enable members to change it afterwards. These requests have been addressed in version 2.33. Now Administrator can set default access for the whole record as Show/Do not show and for each field as Public/Members/No access. This is automatically applied to all new member records Each member can go to his member profile and change access for his record, whatever the default setting. During the 2.33 upgrade we have converted all existing records according to existing admin settings and member settings. One consequence of this change is that Advanced search in the member directory now lists all the fields (previously fields set by admin to No Access were excluded) - since each member can now potentially enable this field for public access. (And search would only be conducted on record who did enable those fields). Open questions  We got feedback from some clients that they do not like this change. (E.g. see this thread) Their preference is that if administrator set certain access level for a field, members should only be able to limit it further: Admin sets   -> Member can set to Public access -> Public/Members/Nobody Member access->Members/Nobody Nobody -> <can't be changed by member>  The problem is that we do have clients who have requested the ability to default to 'No access' and let each member change it afterwards. We would appreciate any input and feedback so that we can consider tuning this further in our future versions. Dmitry Buterin, Chief Apricot

  Report abuse

• 06-04-2008, 12:59 PM

  7552 in reply to 7148

  gypse Joined about 4 years ago Posts 223

  Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 I agree that admin should be able to set the widest level of access for any given field and members should only be able to limit it further. I agree that we should be able to distinquish between data that lists personal contact information that has sensitivity and data about each member that the group needs to function and administer its policies.  Some of the data should be controlled by the member - some of the data, while specific to each member, should only be controlled by the organization.  For example, we have "juried members" that must submit samples of their work and pass a peer review before they can claim this distinction.  Can you imagine if each member could adjust that field?  We want to control what levels can view the field and we want to control who can change the field. As far as the personal information - each group needs to decide what level it wants to encourage their members to participate at - what is mandatory and what is optional.  For example, if we are going to show a member roster at the members level, we need 100% of the names in the roster - we should be able to set the name as mandatory and only the addresses, email, etc as optional.  I'm not sure I'm making complete sense here - but at the members level or admin level, you HAVE to be able to conduct group business.  RE: "The problem is that we do have clients who have requested the ability to default to 'No access' and let each member change it afterwards." I'm not getting where this becomes an issue. I understand shutting off info at the public level at the discretion of the member - but if the group is encouraging public level access, then they should not be shutting that info off, but simply allowing the member to do so . . . Perhaps their problem is missing/bad info in the fields that they don't want to show? but that should not control the base decision I don't think . . .

  Report abuse

• 06-04-2008, 2:28 PM

  7557 in reply to 7552

  Chief_Apricot Joined about 5 years ago Toronto Posts 4,265	Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 Thanks for the input, appreciated. Dmitry Buterin, Chief Apricot
  	Report abuse

• 03-08-2009, 11:45 PM

  11567 in reply to 7552

  rmillstein Joined about 4 years ago Posts 83

  Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 gypse: RE: "The problem is that we do have clients who have requested the ability to default to 'No access' and let each member change it afterwards." I'm not getting where this becomes an issue. I understand shutting off info at the public level at the discretion of the member - but if the group is encouraging public level access, then they should not be shutting that info off, but simply allowing the member to do so . . . Perhaps their problem is missing/bad info in the fields that they don't want to show? but that should not control the base decision I don't think . . . The issue -- for our membership anyway, but I suspect for others -- is that we don't want to force members to have to "opt-out" in order to hide information that they wish to hide.  Rather, the information should be available only if they "opt-in."  I don't want to put up *any* information about my members unless they want it up.  If we make the default "show information" (even the bare minimum of the person's name), then someone might not want that, but only realize later that that information had been revealed.  I can't even imagine the stink that my membership would raise if we revealed information about them without their permission.

  Report abuse

• 03-09-2009, 8:56 AM

  11568 in reply to 11567

  Chief_Apricot Joined about 5 years ago Toronto Posts 4,265	Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 Just to clarify, what you have described is doable in Wild Apricot now. Admin can set member profile page access to no access or sharing bare minimum - and then each member can share more info if desired. Unless I am missing something. Dmitry Buterin, Chief Apricot
  	Report abuse

• 03-09-2009, 1:07 PM

  11577 in reply to 11568

  rmillstein Joined about 4 years ago Posts 83

  Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 Chief_Apricot: Just to clarify, what you have described is doable in Wild Apricot now. Admin can set member profile page access to no access or sharing bare minimum - and then each member can share more info if desired. Unless I am missing something. I get that -- I got the impression from the above that you were considering changing this behavior so that the user can only contract, but not expand, what the default is.   And I am saying why I don't think you should change that behavior.

  Report abuse

• 03-09-2009, 1:10 PM

  11578 in reply to 11577

  Chief_Apricot Joined about 5 years ago Toronto Posts 4,265	Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 Understood, thanks. Dmitry Buterin, Chief Apricot
  	Report abuse

• 06-04-2009, 2:39 AM

  12899 in reply to 11578

  wchester Joined about 3 years ago Posts 66

  Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 There are a lot of good arguments made above.  But the bottom line is that the people that pay for the web site should be able to dictate what data shows up on their site and what data can be changed by the user.  Is that not a simple concept? I believe the only acceptable answer in this scenario is that the Account Admins can choose which fields on the My Profile page are editable and which ones are not.  WA doesn't let me change certain data on this forum because they have certain standards for identification and for the forum's functionality.  So why not let us, your paying clients, have that same discretion with our sites?   If we want to lock down data then it is our perrogative.  If it is a privacy issue with a certain member, that member can choose to NOT be a member.  It's that simple folks. If enough members complain then  you, as the site owner, need to decide whether or not you will honor that request.  And if you don't then maybe you lose some members.  But either way it should be the owner's decision.  Your credit card company doesn't let you choose which of your personal information fields shows up on their Customer Service Reps screens in their database.  Because it is THEIR database...and you opted in to their service...you registered for their credit card!  You either accept it or cancel the credit card. What we are left with now is limited control over our own sites.  Why?  The only current "solution" is to mark a field "No Access - Internal Use".  But this makes it invisible on the Profile and Directory pages and defeats the purpose.  Come on WA, quit stopping just short of usable functionality.  Another of several fatal flaws in the WA architecture.

  Report abuse

• 06-04-2009, 3:03 AM

  12901 in reply to 12899

  rmillstein Joined about 4 years ago Posts 83

  Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 What I think you don't understand is that there are many different types of organizations that use WA.  What you say may be true for your organization.  But I am the sec'y of an academic society.  The society is run by its members.  The society IS its members.  If the members don't want something, it doesn't happen.  Yes, there is an Executive Committee... but as members ourselves,  why would we go against the will of the members?  It would have to be for a REALLY good reason.  And for us, if our members want privacy, they should have it.

  Report abuse

• 06-04-2009, 4:09 AM

  12902 in reply to 12901

  wchester Joined about 3 years ago Posts 66

  Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 What you are saying is not contrary to what I wrote.  In your case the admins would simply set the fields on your site to be editable...and each member can set their access as they desire.  Done. Simple.  But at the end of the day a web site is a series of decisions made by one or more people in a leading role.  All of your members may vote by consensus on what they want, but I highly doubt you give all of them admin access.  Do you?  I mean, if your society is run by your members then why not give everyone admin access?  That was a rhetorical question, because I already know the answer.  The answer is that you don't give everyone admin access.  Because there will never be total consensus on what functionality people want.  Just look at all the opinions on this forum alone.  A handful of people have to weigh the suggestions of the masses and then make an executive decision.  Why not give those people the option to to employ the functionality either way?  It's a win-win.

  Report abuse

• 06-04-2009, 8:22 AM

  12907 in reply to 12902

  Chief_Apricot Joined about 5 years ago Toronto Posts 4,265	Re: Access to Member profile page - change in functionality in 2.33 I have summarized my thoughts in a new entry on the wishlist, let's continue the discussion over there: http://community.wildapricot.com/12906/ShowThread.aspx#12906 Dmitry Buterin, Chief Apricot
  	Report abuse