Hi !

Is it possible to show/hide single fields according userID or privilege set in same layout ?

If User1 is representing customer and User2 accounting, I would like to hide some fields from User1 (for example company profit), but accounting can see it.

Of course I can make different layouts for both, but this was just a simplified example. In real life I would have to make several layouts for same purpose.

Indeed but it includes the workings of relations:

http://www.databasepros.com/FMPro?-DB=resources.fp5&-lay=cgi&-format=list.html&-FIND=+&resource_id=DBPros000743

--sd

That is quite clever, and even I can understand the principle behind.

Thank you !

"Hiding" the field or putting the information on separate layouts [color:red]does not protect the field, nor does it prevent some unauthorized person for viewing or changing it.

Use the Record level and Field Level Access Privielges to control access to the field. That is the only way to protect the field.

Steven

Use the Record level and Field Level Access Privielges to control access to the field. That is the only way to protect the field.

Indeed but it doesn't go amiss to hide layout traces of the field as well! Instead of the sitting duck - hack me, implied!

--sd

And you can hide fields showing by using conditional formatting.

Indeed but it doesn't go amiss to hide layout traces of the field as well! Instead of the sitting duck - hack me, implied!

Søren:

I don't understand what you mean here. Just because the field isn't on the layout does not mean that it is protected. Only the access privileges protect the field, not the UI.

Steven

Hence the "indeed", one thing is security another thing is aesthetics, why attract or draw the users attention to what they can't reach.

It's the distinction between need to know and nice to know - pretty much the gist of this text:

http://www.smallco.net/RestrainYourself.pdf

Please read the threads title again, it says the verb "hide" and not directly secure against ...your aspect of the matter isn't irrelevant at all - true! But it's an interpretation which isn't fully catered for.

It is obvious that forum debates are perfect vehicles for ambiguity, but from there to lean up against the security aspect is and would be the only valid contribution angle to a matter - wears a hobbesian/weberian premise - which not have as many subscribers outside the anglo saxon world as you might be expecting.

In my neck of the woods is it lively debated whether or not CCTV surveillance, really is worth the effort the politicians seems to put in it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_06_surveillance.pdf

Similar is there another anglo saxon tendency, with regards to options and choices, should these really prevail endlessly to the user without actually being so, best put by John Cleese in Fawlty Towers comedy series where is says: "Sorry we're out of walldorfs today" or Henry Fords quote "Any colour - so long as it's black"

--sd