How to add a new user in Pier?

Hi!

I added one user once, but I forgot how I did it. I tried to add  
another one, but I am unlucky so far. Here is what I tried:
        - In _System Management, I press "add", but it seems I can add a page  
there, but not a user
        - In _System Management, I press "edit", this is to modify the page  
_System Management
        - In _System Management, "Setting" does not seem to let one add users

        - In  _System Management/Users, pressing "add" is to add a page. I do  
not know what this mean.
        - In  _System Management/Users, pressing "edit" is to edit the  
component page.
        - In  _System Management/Users, pressing "setting" is to set  
something else than users.

I tried similar "add/edit/setting" on Group, I haven't found the way  
to add a user.

Am I doing something completely wrong? Is Pier suitable for a  
conference website ?

Cheers,
Alexandre

--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.






_______________________________________________
SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki

> Am I doing something completely wrong?

There are the Seaside components 'System Users' and 'System Groups' to
show a list of users and groups. These components can be added to Pier
and allow adding, editing and deleting users.

Then you have three commands "Change Owner", "Change Group" and
"Change Other". Select the page you want to change from the tree (e.g.
the root page) and select "Change Owner". Check "Recursive", i.e.
change all sub-structures as well. Select "Admin" from the
Owner-Select-Box to make Admin the owner of everything. As Operator
you want to have "Set". Finally you can specify the access to the
different available commands for that user.

It is exactly like an unix system, just with objects.

> Is Pier suitable for a conference website ?

People have used it for that kind of sites.

Lukas

--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

_______________________________________________
SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is exactly like an unix system, just with objects.

I think people don't have too many problems with the
unix-filesystem-of-objects concept.
In my experience, what I find most confusing is the modality of the
commands, and separation of similar commands:

- change user/group/other: this cake was cut in the other direction
compared to chmod/chown

- copy and move: I could see them merged, after all mv/cp/ln are kind
of polymorphic in the way they are used

- edit/settings/edit design: for PRPages, title is in edit, but
navigation title is in settings, and the structure name was in move or
add; tags would have their place in the edit dialog, and the
environment/css are redundant with edit design

Of course the commands make sense individually because of the pattern
in the overall design, but that doesn't mean they map to a nice
interaction language for the user.

0.02 euros mine
--
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet

_______________________________________________
SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki

Actually, each of these command groups shares an individual common superclass.

- The original version of Pier-Security used to have a split according
to chmod/chown/chgrp, however in pratice it has shown to be less
meaningful and forcing users to apply different commands for one
action. I found this split very powerful for sites like ese.unibe.ch
where there are many different groups (admin, assistant, student,
team-1, team-2, team-3, team-4) and lots of different users.

- Indeed copy/move are extremely similar (we should have links too). I
don't think that there would be a win if they would be merged. Copying
and moving is something very different.

- The split between edit and settings is somehow arbitrary, but it
makes perfectly sense if you are not the only one editing the site.
Editing is something editors do, designers need more rights and the
admins want to change different things. The navigation title is
something you don't want normal editors to change on the front-pages,
however it defaults to the page title so for pages lower in the tree
it works well. Personally I never use the edit design command, it only
provides access to a subset of possibilities one has with
environments. It does not work if you have many different designs on
one site.

Cheers,
Lukas

--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch

_______________________________________________
SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Lukas Renggli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> - The original version of Pier-Security used to have a split according
> to chmod/chown/chgrp, however in pratice it has shown to be less
> meaningful and forcing users to apply different commands for one
> action. I found this split very powerful for sites like ese.unibe.ch
> where there are many different groups (admin, assistant, student,
> team-1, team-2, team-3, team-4) and lots of different users.

Makes sense. Maybe it's just a problem of presentation then, or
providing links, e.g. so that you don't lose focus when you want to
change the owner of a page, and "oh right, I need to create it before,
with an associated group"

> - Indeed copy/move are extremely similar (we should have links too). I

I'm not sure what links would be, just a page that includes its target stucture?

> don't think that there would be a win if they would be merged. Copying
> and moving is something very different.

What if the command arguments were presented as a sentence with
pre-filled holes instead of a key-value table?
E.g. [move/copy] this structure to [./my-current-page-copy     ]
But indeed, if you want to have template pages, it would be nice to
block move and edit for standard users, and only allow them to copy
it.

> - The split between edit and settings is somehow arbitrary, but it
> makes perfectly sense if you are not the only one editing the site.

Would it be possible to have a composite command that presents the
three interfaces (filtered according to rights) in one page, then
applies the individual commands? Pushed to the extreme, that would
allow per-property accessor commands at the security/persistency
level, grouped by whatever makes sense at the user level…


--
Damien Pollet
type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet


_______________________________________________
SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki