Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: Archiving and deleting communities

Collapse
Posted by Michael Feldstein on
This looks great, in general. A couple of comments/suggestions, though...

First, if archiving a group is fundamentally different than archiving a folder, we ought to use different verbs to distinguish between the two actions. I don't have any ideas off the top of my head, but calling both of these actions "archiving" will be confusing to the user. And actually, a group space in which participants still have write access privileges doesn't seem to fit the term "archived" as it is generally understood. It's inactive, maybe, but not archived, which implies preservation in the state it was in at the time it was archived.

Second, there's another set of archiving options that could be useful. (This may be a post-1.0 enhancement, depending on the immediate needs of the sponsor.) As I understand it, "archive" currently means that the course is closed to new users and references to it are pulled from most portlets, but the class itself remains live and writable to class members. I can imagine a situation in which a professor would want to leave the class accessible on a read-only basis to everyone, including people who weren't participants, but prevent anyone from submitting new content. (This is particularly important where an institution may have liability for the content being posted and would therefore want to be sure that the class was being actively monitored by a professor or other responsible party.)

Other than those two suggestions, this looks solid.