Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
R2D2

Hiding field according user

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Thank you !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you can hide fields showing by using conditional formatting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Who Viewed the Topic

    1 member has viewed this topic:
    Will Xu 
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.