search

rhodges / oregon-marinemap

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/oregon-marinemap
0 stars 0 forks source link

Resolve how to incorporate both shape types #23

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Should they both (nearshore habitat atlas and energy sites) be incorporated 
into the same UI or should they be two completely separate applications?  
According to Chad, it's really one or the other as described and not 
necessarily something in between.

Are there political issues with users being able to access both nearshore 
habitat and energy site features together?

We could hide one set of features or the other from a user based on which group 
their in

Original issue reported on code.google.com by tim.j.welch@gmail.com on 14 Jul 2010 at 6:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I've worked up some mockups and pros/cons for the different approaches we can 
take on this. Maybe we should have a quick chat about this sometime next week 
before I leave for vacation?

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ne-_z88RtngvDP5avRyuZLjujGiu4q_77l9Kq7S
qOqE

Original comment by underbluewaters on 17 Jul 2010 at 12:23

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hmm, my formatting didn't come out quite right in the published html version. 
I've attached a pdf.

Original comment by underbluewaters on 17 Jul 2010 at 12:29

Attachments:

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
From a developer perspective I like option C as well and some flexibility is 
clearly possible for limiting how visible each module is to the user.  The 
groups of data layers will be visible but until they actually create a concept 
and select it, they're not going to see everything else (analysis, reports, 
etc.)

Just a thought. While a more generalized permission system for what the user 
sees and actions they can perform is a great idea, I think if we only needed to 
do a little bit of that we could probably do it in a little more ad hoc 
fashion.  Limiting who can view the Ecotrust fishing impact maps for North 
coast marinemap is an example even though at this point I think all 
authenticated users get to see them now.  Group checking seems just as simple 
and since the groups (modules) are pre-defined, hard coding the group names in 
the project code seems reasonable.  Thoughts?

Original comment by tim.j.welch@gmail.com on 17 Jul 2010 at 6:05

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Please ignore the google doc and just download the PDF. The images in the 
google doc are all the same for some reason.

Original comment by underbluewaters on 19 Jul 2010 at 5:51

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Moving forward at this time with the user drawing generalized areas of inquiry 
and they will be able to run reports related to nearshore habitat atlas or wave 
energy for example.  Design work for supporting multiple shape types should 
still commence, even if implementation comes later or not at all. 

May move chad's design doc into a more general design wiki page.

Original comment by tim.j.welch@gmail.com on 23 Jul 2010 at 12:29