When a log-in does not allow access to certain fields.
Is it possible for those fields to not display the question mark?
And just display nothing?
You might use hide object when or conditional formatting.
right, thanx for that, - can do if needed, but
I was hoping there was more of a 'global' approach so that I wouldn't have to go thru all the layouts and fields to denote, 'hide when xxx' . I have a lot of layouts and fields that will need to be 'hidden' with the new 'limited' account I' about to create.
thanx for your time
Sounds like those fields should be in a related record so that you can block access to them as a record instead of field by field. Then a relationship could at least keep the fields empty if the relationship uses an added match field to control whether or not the data in the related record is accessible.
Thank you for the input.
There are too many various fields in various layouts via various relationships for me to go thru and set it up as you have suggested.
It just seems a bit weird that when a field has 'no access' to a user that it displays a ?, I would think it would do something different like not show the field at all.
Again, I understand your suggestion and thank you for your time as always.
This is not as easy as it might seem.
If you know that you are going to have multiple access levels, you should design your layouts around that, showing users of level X just what they need to see.
Because even if you could globally hide the fields that a user can't see, you would be left with field labels on the layout next to nothing, empty columns in portals with a label at top, eventually with buttons and scripts needing that data in order to work and so on.
The key to your suggestion is "know that you are going to have multiple access levels" -
unfortunately when this database was designed the knowledge of needing multiple levels of access was not there. so the layout designs are not able to easily be altered to allow for multiple levels of access.
I appreciate your comment.
Of course you're right, but that's one of the reasons why developers exist: be called to adapt an existing system to the mutated requirements of the user base.
( And last but not least: be paid for doing it )
Sounds like you have very "wide" tables, lots and lots of fields to a record, maybe in the hundreds?
We have that problem here and over many different files. Bit by bit we nudge the design towards something better, but it's a slow process as we have to keep the current system working even as we "retrofit" to better standards....
=), yes, 'wide' would be a good term.
a 16 y/o database, started when I was really 'hacking away at it', no knowledge whatsoever.
Not that I'm any animal now, but I've come a long way.
Yeah, I need to start 'nudging' good term, this monster toward, 'something better'. big smile.
Can you not at least duplicate the main layout, remove all the inaccessible fields from one of them, use access privileges to point restricted users to this version of the layout instead of the other, and deny them access to the entire unrestricted layout. At least that way, if they somehow land on the unrestricted layout anyhow they would get an "Access Denied" message only, instead of fields with question marks in them.
you know, that's not a bad 'shot', going forward though, as I modify the 'original' layout, I have to also modify the 'restricted access' layout. And I would be doing this on 5 different layouts. Meaning, I have 5 main layouts that get utilized. Good thoughts to ponder though.
Thank you for your input, much appreciated.
I guess the extent of the duplication effort depends on the degree to which you want the unrestricted and restricted layouts to mirror one another. Nevertheless, it may be better than doing a whole lot of similarly duplicated effort at field level if you keep the same layouts for both users groups.
sidebar question, (maybe I should start another post)?
If there are a number of fields that have the 'hide object when' invoked 'enabled'
would that not 'tax' the system a bit if there were say 10 fields in 7 different portals.
- would it take a bit of time or is it a non-issue, just curious to folks' opinions.
It could add to the "load". How much is something to test. Record Level Access control itself can have a negative affect on response times as accessibility now has to be evaluated record by record.
BTW, I may be pointing out the obvious here, but
Using either conditional formats (to make the ? disappear) or Hide object when (to make the field and label disappear) is something that can be applied one time to multiple layout objects. So you can shift click or drag a selection box to get multiple items and then specify the conditional expression once. That will make this process a little less of a pain.
Others with more intimate knowledge of FM's inner workings than I may view this differently, but to my mind it would seem that the Hide condition is just another calc which would only need to be processed (1) when the layout is first opened and (2) when the condition on which it is based changes.
Many thanx to all, I am very appreciative, thank you, all great food for thought. Great forum to 'air' stuff out.
Retrieving data ...