not browsable, then hidden ?

[rejetto]

what the purpose on showing the folder but we cant enter it? why dont set if the folder is not browsable, it also will be hidden.

this objection makes sense.
i think from now on, when "browsable" is removed from a folder, it should be also considered hidden.
is anyone contrary?

[Giant Eagle]

Yes, i think it should display the contents of [protected], which should be a lock image.

So you still know it's there, but.. well.. not accessable

[fabnos]

Yes, i think it should display the contents of [protected], which should be a lock image.

So you still know it's there, but.. well.. not accessable

With which purpose ?

HFS admin know existence of any resources from HFS's vfs and in this way any (users or anonymous) don't have the possibility to see this level.

f.

[TSG]

Im with Giant Eagle on this one, it should appear locked.

[fabnos]

Im with Giant Eagle on this one, it should appear locked.

For me it's indifferent but, sorry here I'm repeating, why 

There is some particular reason that should appear locked ?

f.

[rejetto]

this way people would think they need a password. wouldn't they?

[TSG]

Good Point...

[TCube]

With which purpose ?
HFS admin know existence of any resources from HFS's vfs and in this way any (users or anonymous) don't have the possibility to see this level.
f.

Well, on the end user side I would like to see who's "active" on Hfs ... that whould trigger my interest to register. Then, it would be up to any user/or user group to accept someone else to "join in"
So i would say : display the protected contents.

TCube

[Giant Eagle]

this way people would think they need a password. wouldn't they?

Meaning they wont try to access it, cause they dont know the password.

This affects logged-in users aswell, if their account would have given them permission, the lock wouldnt be there in the first place.

Its just an unlock-able lock.


And even so, if they do try to access it.. "What's behind door #1?" "A shiny 'ACCESS DENIED' error page!"

//edit:

With which purpose ?
HFS admin know existence of any resources from HFS's vfs and in this way any (users or anonymous) don't have the possibility to see this level.
f.

A real HFS Admin knows that there is an option called "Right click folder -> Hide"

[rejetto]

Well, on the end user side I would like to see who's "active" on Hfs ... that whould trigger my interest to register. Then, it would be up to any user/or user group to accept someone else to "join in"
So i would say : display the protected contents.

you didn't understand. this has nothing to do with accounts.
when you remove browsable
1. you can still download files if you know their URL
2. no one can see the list, doesn't matter if you have an account

[rejetto]

Meaning they wont try to access it, cause they dont know the password.

if they should not even try, why should they know it exists?

A real HFS Admin knows that there is an option called "Right click folder -> Hide"

the point is: is people, EVERY time they click on browsable, clicking ALSO on "hide"?
if the answer is "yes", then there's no sense in having to click twice, it is just extra work.

[fabnos]

Meaning they wont try to access it, cause they dont know the password.

This affects logged-in users aswell, if their account would have given them permission, the lock wouldnt be there in the first place.

Its just an unlock-able lock .

And even so, if they do try to access it.. "What's behind door #1?" "A shiny 'ACCESS DENIED' error page!"

Well, as usual I'm thinking in a commercial way (level permissions: Groups and User, etc.)

This way we stimulate the curiosity of the consumers that see the presence of a protected item   what treasure there will be inside  
and not even users are good clients  

Why not have both possibilities ?
Webmaster can choose which it's better for him in respect of the necessity .

A real HFS Admin knows that there is an option called "Right click folder -> Hide"

This was obvious    but, indeed, I'm not a real HFS Admin  

[TCube]

Well, on the end user side I would like to see who's "active" on Hfs ... that whould trigger my interest to register. Then, it would be up to any user/or user group to accept someone else to "join in"
So i would say : display the protected contents.

you didn't understand. this has nothing to do with accounts.
when you remove browsable
1. you can still download files if you know their URL
2. no one can see the list, doesn't matter if you have an account

I did understand myself quite right  .... so fix it as I wish Rejetto ! on the double ! 

--->

Edit : Fabnos is my friend ! good thinking pal !

[Giant Eagle]

A real HFS Admin knows that there is an option called "Right click folder -> Hide"

the point is: is people, EVERY time they click on browsable, clicking ALSO on "hide"?

Heh you actually make it sound like we daily add thousends of folders and want to hide them and make them not browseable, because i dont see your point otherwise. It's a server. A server needs time to set up properly. Dont have time? Dont start a server.

if the answer is "yes", then there's no sense in having to click twice, it is just extra work.

>_< What do you win by this? 0.6 seconds?

If you really want to decrease "work-time" or "Annoyance", then create a menu that does not go away when you select something. Give it select boxes and those "Apply" "Cancel" and  "Ok" buttons like most setting menu's have. I'm sure people prefer this over the 'Browsable feature auto-hiding the selected folder if checked' thing.

just my opinion, no offence at all..

[rejetto]

if the answer is "yes", then there's no sense in having to click twice, it is just extra work.

>_< What do you win by this? 0.6 seconds?

it was not meant to save the time for the click.
the extra work is for complexity.
to get things easier.
10 seconds is a short time, but if you have to spend it thinking & searching, you will feel the thing as "not that clear and easy".

anyway, i don't see an agreement on this matter.
we can just leave things as they are.

and, an advice: if you want to see the [locked] on the folder, set also a password.
that's not the same thing, but may be good for someone.