SafeEditor MVP, edit your safe files directly from your browser

Apps
21

Maybe we need to rethink the Launcher UX here, for example…

Instead of seeing the data as “belonging” to an app, which it clearly doesn’t because another app can access it with the user’s permission, perhaps “Authorisation of an app” is what is misleading here. At the moment, an app can ask for authorisation to access App or Drive:

  • App meaning, a bucket of data that is (behind the scenes) referenced using a hash based on the app’s identifying information (name and vendor I think), and
  • Drive meaning a bucket of data that any App can see providing the user “Allows” it.

What’s confusing is that any App can request and be given access to the App data created by another App - but to do so has to “pretend” to be the other App. This is very confusing in the UI, and misrepresents what is really happening.

So instead of keying the “App” data bucket using the name of the application we should see it as named bucket of data, like Drive, and which any App can explicitly request access to. This removes the need for one app to pretend to be another - it can be honest about who it is, and clear about what it is asking to access.

So instead of authorisation in Launcher saying:

Authorise Request:

AppName: SAFE Demo App
Vendor: MaidSafe
Version: 0.6.0

Permissions:
  None

             DENY  ALLOW

The app would supply a name for the each data bucket it wants to access, and this would appear under Permissions. If an app wants its own bucket, it can have it, but another app could also request access to the same bucket.

So for the SAFE Demo App it might say:

Authorise Request:

AppName: SAFE Demo App
Vendor: MaidSafe
Version: 0.6.0

Permissions:
  SAFE Demo Files

             DENY  ALLOW

Then, it would be clearer if another App seeks access to that same data, as in SafeEditor:

Authorise Request:

AppName: SafeEditor
Vendor: DavidMtl
Version: 0.1.0

Permissions:
  SAFE Demo Files

             DENY  ALLOW

I think this can be tidied up further, by hiding details that are not needed unless the user asks for them by clicking on a “more info…” link. So the authorisation message could be much simpler. For example:

SAFE Demo App ([details=more info...]
Vendor: MaidSafe
Version: 0.6.0[/details])

Wants to access: SAFE Demo Files

            ALLOW  DENY

Note: I’ve reversed position of “ALLOW” and “DENY” as I think the default should be first, reading left to right.

SAFE Demo App ([details=more info...]
Vendor: MaidSafe
Version: 0.6.0[/details])

Wants to access: SAFE Demo Files

            ALLOW  DENY
4 Likes