Forum .LRN Q&A: .LRN administrators group UI

Posted by Rocael Hernández Rizzardini on 06/22/04 03:24 AM

Hello,
we are planning to add a simple UI for manage who is a .LRN administrator (note that not anymore need to be a site-wide-admin, now just a .LRN admin), so we avoid .LRN admins navigating swa admin pages.

So, the first step is to put all those people into a group, which can be a new group, lets say: dotlrn-admins (and not use the standard one like "staff", or shall we use it for dotlrn-admins? I think new group is better).
Also, when this new UI is done, will not make sense anymore to show the link of "Site-wide Admin?" aside each user in the /dotlrn/admin/users page?

Or shall we keep offering swa link so another swa can convert them?
and the same for a new dotlrn-admin link?

Our initial proposal is to have a group, which will have a admin priviledge for the /dotlrn package and then, have an specific UI linked under /dotlrn/admin where you can add/del users who belong to this group. And of course, get rid of the swa link at /dotlrn/admin/users to avoid confusions.

We would like to hear comments about this, and specially if someone has some usability thoughts that might want to share.

2: Re: .LRN administrators group UI (response to 1)

Posted by Deirdre Kane on 06/22/04 01:54 PM

Roc,

I'm having trouble visualizing these changes and understanding the need that they are addressing for you. And i am not sure that this is a need for Sloan and i want to understand how this new stuff will be useful to us. Can you tell me, (again, I think i forgot), what a dotlrn-admin will be able to do/what pages will they be able to access versus a site wide admin? For example, when you say they will have admin privilege for a dotlrn package, does that mean that they would have privileges on file storage for all classes or just certain classes? This is not as useful to me as, say, giving a user or users admin rights over file storage within a particular class so that they can upload files without having control over calendar.

I think this new group should have a new group name, like dotlrn-admins and my first reaction is to say no to removing the site wide admin link from each /dotlrn/admin/users page. And, another question: will the /dotlrn/admin/users page for each user show who is a dotlrn-admin and who is not? I think yes, but want to me sure. I would also think that it would make sense to allow access to both the dotlrn-admin group and the swa group (for administration of those groups) from the same place: /dotlrn/admin page. Right now, I have to go into the site map to find out who is a site wide admin.

3: Re: .LRN administrators group UI (response to 1)

Posted by Nima Mazloumi on 06/22/04 02:51 PM

I am not sure if this fits to the discussion here but I think it would be great if we could allow a class/community admin to access the sitemap of his group and to install not integrated applications on the one hand and to give rights to individuals for some applications. This would enable an admin to delegate some work to group members. If we could in the long-term offer an admin portlet or better an customized control-panel page to those members who have admin privileges to some applications would be great.

Regarding dotlrn-wide admins: I think this is very useful. Difference installations of dotLRN could run on the same server in a decentralized way and a sitewide admin at the IT department could take care of server maintenance while dotlrn admins are responsible for their dotlrn instance.

4: Re: .LRN administrators group UI (response to 3)

Posted by Deirdre Kane on 06/22/04 05:29 PM

With my users, I would not want them in the site map because the majority of them would not understand the interface and are likely to do more harm than good. I would rather wait for an admin portlet interface to allow them to make those choices.

In reference to Nima's second paragraph, I guess I don't understand the "dotlrn admin" role enough to that it fits what Nima describes: "a sitewide admin at the IT department could take care of server maintenance while dotlrn admins are responsible for their dotlrn instance." Yes, that would be great, but i didn't understand the description in that way. Plus, the site wide admin, at least as i play the role here, does not do the server maintenance. The site wide admin creates the subject, communities and classes, users, etc. So, would the new dotlrn-admin do all that with these changes?

5: Re: .LRN administrators group UI (response to 1)

Posted by Rocael Hernández Rizzardini on 06/22/04 05:55 PM

<blockquote>Regarding dotlrn-wide admins: I think this is very useful. >Difference installations of dotLRN could run on the same >server in a decentralized way and a sitewide admin at the IT >department could take care of server maintenance while dotlrn >admins are responsible for their dotlrn instance.
</blockquote>

yes, this exactly the behaivor that I'm looking for ...

<blockquote>The site wide admin creates the subject, communities and classes, users
</blockquote>

yes, it will maintain just that power, to admin all the dotlrn instance & navigate through all the classes, etc., but nothing behind that (no access to APM and stuff like that).

Remember that the swa will remain able to admin this as well.

The new UI will show you who's dotlrn-admin, and add/del users from that group.

6: Re: .LRN administrators group UI (response to 1)

Posted by Deirdre Kane on 06/22/04 06:44 PM

this makes more sense to me now - sounds good - i'm looking forward to seeing it and using it.