From: Tony G. <TB...@xt...> - 2007-12-31 09:55:22
|
First question: I would like to produce a web page of my side of the family i.e. not show any of my wife's extended family. I have created custom filters as follows: 1. Common ancestors of myself 2. People matching <filter 1> or spouse of people matching <filter 1>, at least one rule must apply. The <filter 2> works well in the people view; none of my wife's ancestry etc shows. But when I produce the narrative web site and include the ancestor graph, my wife's ancestors show for number of generations chosen. As the ancestors are not in the data (the filter screened them out), information on them is not available, but they do show. I do not want them to. Is there something I am missing in what I am doing? Second question: I have used the call name field extensively rather than add nicknames or other names and would like this to show. Has this been discussed before or should I make a feature request? I am using version 2.2.9 on Ubuntu. Tony |
From: Duncan L. <dli...@gm...> - 2007-12-31 12:40:32
|
On 31/12/2007, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt...> wrote: > Second question: > > I have used the call name field extensively rather than add nicknames or > other names and would like this to show. Has this been discussed before or > should I make a feature request? I guess that depends, where do you want the callname to be visible? If you can tell more more specifically then I can make a website using your description using the next (unreleased) version of GRAMPS and we can see if what you want has already been done. Duncan |
From: Duncan L. <dli...@gm...> - 2007-12-31 12:41:45
|
On 31/12/2007, Duncan Lithgow <dli...@gm...> wrote: > On 31/12/2007, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt...> wrote: Ah, Tony. I just noticed you're in New Zealand. Greetings to my beloved homeland, I now live in Denmark with wife and child. What city are you in? Duncan |
From: <ste...@gm...> - 2007-12-31 17:01:29
|
To answer Duncan's question, I just tried this in 3.0.0, and in my opinion we're still doing the wrong thing. That is, I've created the following filters: 1) People with a common ancestor with <me> 2) Spouses of <filter #1> match 3) At least one rule must apply: People matching filter <1>, or People matching filter <2> When I run NarrativeWeb, only my side of the family is generated, plus all the spouses. So when I click on my wife, all her ancestors are listed in the "Ancestors" portion of the page. None of the names are "clickable", so NarrativeWeb knows there are no pages generated for these people. The question becomes: if the filters excludes someone from NarrativeWeb, should that be treated the same as if the person had been marked "private"? (If the previous answer is yes, also consider this: Say I have a media object with someone from both sides of the family. Should that media object be excluded because it contains references to someone excluded by the filters?) St=E9phane |
From: Brian M. <br...@gr...> - 2007-12-31 22:49:48
|
> To answer Duncan's question, I just tried this in > 3.0.0, and in my > opinion we're still doing the wrong thing. That is, > I've created the > following filters: > > 1) People with a common ancestor with <me> > 2) Spouses of <filter #1> match > 3) At least one rule must apply: People matching > filter <1>, or > People matching filter <2> > > When I run NarrativeWeb, only my side of the family > is generated, plus > all the spouses. So when I click on my wife, all > her ancestors are > listed in the "Ancestors" portion of the page. None > of the names are > "clickable", so NarrativeWeb knows there are no > pages generated for > these people. I'm certain that the report is acting in the manor that the original author intended it. Some people don't realize this, but the report is actually person centric. That is, the users specifies for which people a web page is generated. All the other pages are generated as needed by the person pages. Whether it is right or wrong depends on the user :) > The question becomes: if the filters excludes > someone from > NarrativeWeb, should that be treated the same as if > the person had > been marked "private"? That IS the ultimate question. It appears that you and Tony would say "yes". Another way to ask it: "What would aunt Martha expect it to do?" What do others think? ~Brian |
From: Douglas S. B. <db...@cs...> - 2007-12-31 22:58:35
|
On Mon, December 31, 2007 5:49 pm, Brian Matherly wrote: >> The question becomes: if the filters excludes >> someone from >> NarrativeWeb, should that be treated the same as if >> the person had >> been marked "private"? > > That IS the ultimate question. It appears that you and > Tony would say "yes". Another way to ask it: "What > would aunt Martha expect it to do?" > > What do others think? > > ~Brian This is hard for me to have an opinion because I'm not sure exactly how current reports would change if we excluded those that didn't match the filter. For example, would people that currently show up on the calendar not show up? Would there be an easy way to get them to show up? If it were just a matter of treating people that weren't in the filter based on an additional option "Show private people" that would be fine, I think. Although I'm not sure I (let alone A. Martha) would know who is and is not matching a filter such as "Descendant Families of Sally Smith". -Doug |
From: Tony G. <TB...@xt...> - 2008-01-01 00:59:48
|
My answer to Brian's question is yes and I think Aunt Martha would probably agree. If I intentionally filter out somebody then I wouldn't expect them to show regardless of which report we are talking about. This would be normal filter behaviour would it not? Whatever method is used to achieve the result I don't think it should require any additional option choices from the user. Labelling those that the filter excludes as 'private' I think confuses the two issues of filtering and privacy. Tony On Mon, 2007-12-31 at 17:58 -0500, Douglas S. Blank wrote: > On Mon, December 31, 2007 5:49 pm, Brian Matherly wrote: > > >> The question becomes: if the filters excludes > >> someone from > >> NarrativeWeb, should that be treated the same as if > >> the person had > >> been marked "private"? > > > > That IS the ultimate question. It appears that you and > > Tony would say "yes". Another way to ask it: "What > > would aunt Martha expect it to do?" > > > > What do others think? > > > > ~Brian > > This is hard for me to have an opinion because I'm not sure exactly how > current reports would change if we excluded those that didn't match the > filter. For example, would people that currently show up on the calendar > not show up? Would there be an easy way to get them to show up? > > If it were just a matter of treating people that weren't in the filter > based on an additional option "Show private people" that would be fine, I > think. Although I'm not sure I (let alone A. Martha) would know who is and > is not matching a filter such as "Descendant Families of Sally Smith". > > -Doug |
From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2008-01-02 08:59:54
|
2008/1/1, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt...>: > > My answer to Brian's question is yes and I think Aunt Martha would > probably agree. If I intentionally filter out somebody then I wouldn't > expect them to show regardless of which report we are talking about. > This would be normal filter behaviour would it not? It depends, you might not want to see it, but you might want to know they are in your database so you should not worry about missing information. That is, should the report show 'withheld ancestor' or show nothing. My experience learns that if you show info to users with things not shown, they start to talk about them knowing who the missing person is, or the missing data, while in reality you have the data, you just printed a report with only the information needed to discuss with them. Benny |
From: Tony G. <TB...@xt...> - 2008-01-02 22:44:27
|
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:59 +0100, Benny Malengier wrote: > > > 2008/1/1, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt...>: > > My answer to Brian's question is yes and I think Aunt Martha > would > probably agree. If I intentionally filter out somebody then I > wouldn't > expect them to show regardless of which report we are talking > about. > This would be normal filter behaviour would it not? > > > It depends, you might not want to see it, but you might want to know > they are in your database so you should not worry about missing > information. > > That is, should the report show 'withheld ancestor' or show nothing. > > My experience learns that if you show info to users with things not > shown, they start to talk about them knowing who the missing person > is, or the missing data, while in reality you have the data, you just > printed a report with only the information needed to discuss with > them. > > Benny > Benny I still think that to keep things simple and avoid the need to have other user options in reports, if you filter someone out, they should not show in the report i.e. show nothing. If I am worried about others reactions to missing people in the report then I should either not filter them out or have an explanation handy when they raise the questions. What is actually in the database is another matter. When I use a filter I should recognise that unseen people are just filtered out. If I want to check that they are in the database, I can simply reset the filter. Tony |
From: James G. S. (jim) <jg...@sa...> - 2008-01-02 23:07:25
|
Tony Gordon wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:59 +0100, Benny Malengier wrote: > >> >> 2008/1/1, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt...>: >> >> My answer to Brian's question is yes and I think Aunt Martha >> would >> probably agree. If I intentionally filter out somebody then I >> wouldn't >> expect them to show regardless of which report we are talking >> about. >> This would be normal filter behaviour would it not? >> >> >> It depends, you might not want to see it, but you might want to know >> they are in your database so you should not worry about missing >> information. >> >> That is, should the report show 'withheld ancestor' or show nothing. >> >> My experience learns that if you show info to users with things not >> shown, they start to talk about them knowing who the missing person >> is, or the missing data, while in reality you have the data, you just >> printed a report with only the information needed to discuss with >> them. >> >> Benny >> > > Benny > > I still think that to keep things simple and avoid the need to have > other user options in reports, if you filter someone out, they should > not show in the report i.e. show nothing. If I am worried about others > reactions to missing people in the report then I should either not > filter them out or have an explanation handy when they raise the > questions. > > What is actually in the database is another matter. When I use a filter > I should recognise that unseen people are just filtered out. If I want > to check that they are in the database, I can simply reset the filter. There may be an unwritten requirement here; giving feedback to the user creating the report. I know that a lot of times when I press a button (or run a program) and something happens, I am left in the "now what really happened", or "did it really do what I wanted", "did I press the right button", etc. Now, it is certainly possible to have too much feedback (eg dialogs that distract and must be dismissed), which is especially annoying (and counter-productive) when you get to expert user level, but optional verbosity, or last-action status data, or even summary logs things might be useful to keep in mind. In this case, I am thinking of something maybe like "Report Xxx: nn persons included (mm filtered out)" Even an abbreviated message on a status line, for example might let me recover from operator mistakes, as well as give me reassurance of doing what I intended. To me, an option for examining a more elaborate action summary (log entry or tooltip) seems worth considering. Regards, ..jim (UI design is hard work!) |
From: Ken <ma...@sl...> - 2008-01-03 23:13:20
|
Tony Gordon wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:59 +0100, Benny Malengier wrote: >> >> >> 2008/1/1, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt... <mailto:TB...@xt...>>: >> >> My answer to Brian's question is yes and I think Aunt Martha would >> probably agree. If I intentionally filter out somebody then I >> wouldn't >> expect them to show regardless of which report we are talking about. >> This would be normal filter behaviour would it not? >> >> >> It depends, you might not want to see it, but you might want to know >> they are in your database so you should not worry about missing >> information. >> >> That is, should the report show 'withheld ancestor' or show nothing. >> >> My experience learns that if you show info to users with things not >> shown, they start to talk about them knowing who the missing person >> is, or the missing data, while in reality you have the data, you just >> printed a report with only the information needed to discuss with them. >> >> Benny >> > Benny > > I still think that to keep things simple and avoid the need to have > other user options in reports, if you filter someone out, they should > not show in the report i.e. show nothing. If I am worried about others > reactions to missing people in the report then I should either not > filter them out or have an explanation handy when they raise the > questions. > > What is actually in the database is another matter. When I use a > filter I should recognise that unseen people are just filtered out. If > I want to check that they are in the database, I can simply reset the > filter. > > Tony I agree with Tony. I a filter is set to exclude people, or people or events are marked as private then I expect that they will not show in reports. I expect a filter set for a purpose to apply the same rules were ever it is used. What is the use of filtering out people or marking as private if these people or events then appear in reports. As an example, someone writes a biography of you. In their research they discover your bank details, login passwords etc. You tell them they are private and must be filtered out, not used. When the book is published the information is included. How do you feel ? Ken. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Douglas S. B. <db...@cs...> - 2008-01-03 23:32:08
|
On Thu, January 3, 2008 6:13 pm, Ken wrote: > Tony Gordon wrote: >> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:59 +0100, Benny Malengier wrote: >>> >>> >>> 2008/1/1, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt... <mailto:TB...@xt...>>: >>> >>> My answer to Brian's question is yes and I think Aunt Martha would >>> probably agree. If I intentionally filter out somebody then I >>> wouldn't >>> expect them to show regardless of which report we are talking >>> about. >>> This would be normal filter behaviour would it not? >>> >>> >>> It depends, you might not want to see it, but you might want to know >>> they are in your database so you should not worry about missing >>> information. >>> >>> That is, should the report show 'withheld ancestor' or show nothing. >>> >>> My experience learns that if you show info to users with things not >>> shown, they start to talk about them knowing who the missing person >>> is, or the missing data, while in reality you have the data, you just >>> printed a report with only the information needed to discuss with them. >>> >>> Benny >>> >> Benny >> >> I still think that to keep things simple and avoid the need to have >> other user options in reports, if you filter someone out, they should >> not show in the report i.e. show nothing. If I am worried about others >> reactions to missing people in the report then I should either not >> filter them out or have an explanation handy when they raise the >> questions. >> >> What is actually in the database is another matter. When I use a >> filter I should recognise that unseen people are just filtered out. If >> I want to check that they are in the database, I can simply reset the >> filter. >> >> Tony > I agree with Tony. I a filter is set to exclude people, or people or > > events are marked as private then I expect that they will not show in > reports. I expect a filter set for a purpose to apply the same rules were > ever it is used. > What is the use of filtering out people or marking as private if these > people or events then appear in reports. > As an example, someone writes a biography of you. In their research they > discover your bank details, login passwords etc. You tell them they are > private and must be filtered out, not used. When the book is published > the information is included. How do you feel ? > > Ken. I think I may be confused, or this may be a little more subtle than described here. Say that you pick a filter that gives you an individual, but the report has places to list one's children and spouse. If we follow the rule that we only display people on a report that are listed in the filter, then none of the other people would display. Is there an easy way to, say, filter on one's immediately family? It isn't descendant-based, as that would exclude the spouse. This sounds harder to use, and not intuitive (unless there was a check box that made it worked the way that it currently does, and includes those people). How any current reports are designed to work by intuitively including people not in the filter? How many are not? As I mentioned originally, I would like to know how the current filters+reports output would change if we implement this privacy rule. -Doug |
From: Brian M. <br...@gr...> - 2008-01-04 13:05:26
|
Doug, > > I agree with Tony. I a filter is set to exclude > people, or people or > > > > events are marked as private then I expect that > they will not show in > > reports. I expect a filter set for a purpose to > apply the same rules were > > ever it is used. > > What is the use of filtering out people or > marking as private if these > > people or events then appear in reports. > > I think I may be confused, or this may be a little > more subtle than > described here. Say that you pick a filter that > gives you an individual, > but the report has places to list one's children and > spouse. If we follow > the rule that we only display people on a report > that are listed in the > filter, then none of the other people would display. > As I mentioned originally, I would like to know how > the current > filters+reports output would change if we implement > this privacy rule. You have made an important observation. Filters are generally used in reports to determine which people to write the report about. Take the Individual Complete report as an example. If you choose a filter that includes only one person, the resulting report has that person's Parents, Children and Spouse. If the filtration worked the way many people are saying it should, there would be no way to generate an Individual Complete report that includes a person's Parents, Children and Spouse without building a complicated filter that also generates pages for those people (which in turn would be missing some parent, child and spouse information because it wasn't in your filter). The same analogy applies to the website. The filter determines for which people an HTML page is generated. I personally don't think that Aunt Martha is interested in composing complicated filters so that she can includes people's parents, children and spouses in the reports. She just want them to be there. Perhaps we need a more advanced privacy option that allows advanced users to make people that match a different filter private. This privacy filter would PROBABLY be different than the report filter in most cases. ~Brian |
From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2008-01-04 13:24:31
|
2008/1/4, Brian Matherly <br...@gr...>: > > Doug, > > > > I agree with Tony. I a filter is set to exclude > > people, or people or > > > > > > events are marked as private then I expect that > > they will not show in > > > reports. I expect a filter set for a purpose to > > apply the same rules were > > > ever it is used. > > > What is the use of filtering out people or > > marking as private if these > > > people or events then appear in reports. > > > > I think I may be confused, or this may be a little > > more subtle than > > described here. Say that you pick a filter that > > gives you an individual, > > but the report has places to list one's children and > > spouse. If we follow > > the rule that we only display people on a report > > that are listed in the > > filter, then none of the other people would display. > > > As I mentioned originally, I would like to know how > > the current > > filters+reports output would change if we implement > > this privacy rule. > > You have made an important observation. Filters are > generally used in reports to determine which people to > write the report about. Take the Individual Complete > report as an example. If you choose a filter that > includes only one person, the resulting report has > that person's Parents, Children and Spouse. > > If the filtration worked the way many people are > saying it should, there would be no way to generate an > Individual Complete report that includes a person's > Parents, Children and Spouse without building a > complicated filter that also generates pages for those > people (which in turn would be missing some parent, > child and spouse information because it wasn't in your > filter). > > The same analogy applies to the website. The filter > determines for which people an HTML page is generated. > > I personally don't think that Aunt Martha is > interested in composing complicated filters so that > she can includes people's parents, children and > spouses in the reports. She just want them to be > there. > > Perhaps we need a more advanced privacy option that > allows advanced users to make people that match a > different filter private. This privacy filter would > PROBABLY be different than the report filter in most > cases. > > ~Brian A very interesting line of thought. I think you should write it down so we don't forget this. It would solve many problems people indicate here. Benny |
From: Brian M. <br...@gr...> - 2008-01-04 14:15:11
|
> A very interesting line of thought. I think you > should write it down so we > don't forget this. It would solve many problems > people indicate here. http://bugs.gramps-project.org/view.php?id=1534 |
From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2008-01-04 08:51:22
|
With the new privacy proxy in 3.0, all that is private will _not_ be in the proxy database, and hence will not be in the report. Eg, bug http://bugs.gramps-project.org/view.php?id=1149 shows this, works in 3.0, to implement in 2.2 would be a PITA. So I think we should try to convert all reports to run on the proxy database if users click on the 'no private objects' option/filter Benny 2008/1/4, Douglas S. Blank <db...@cs...>: > > > On Thu, January 3, 2008 6:13 pm, Ken wrote: > > Tony Gordon wrote: > >> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:59 +0100, Benny Malengier wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> 2008/1/1, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt... <mailto:TB...@xt...>>: > >>> > >>> My answer to Brian's question is yes and I think Aunt Martha would > >>> probably agree. If I intentionally filter out somebody then I > >>> wouldn't > >>> expect them to show regardless of which report we are talking > >>> about. > >>> This would be normal filter behaviour would it not? > >>> > >>> > >>> It depends, you might not want to see it, but you might want to know > >>> they are in your database so you should not worry about missing > >>> information. > >>> > >>> That is, should the report show 'withheld ancestor' or show nothing. > >>> > >>> My experience learns that if you show info to users with things not > >>> shown, they start to talk about them knowing who the missing person > >>> is, or the missing data, while in reality you have the data, you just > >>> printed a report with only the information needed to discuss with > them. > >>> > >>> Benny > >>> > >> Benny > >> > >> I still think that to keep things simple and avoid the need to have > >> other user options in reports, if you filter someone out, they should > >> not show in the report i.e. show nothing. If I am worried about others > >> reactions to missing people in the report then I should either not > >> filter them out or have an explanation handy when they raise the > >> questions. > >> > >> What is actually in the database is another matter. When I use a > >> filter I should recognise that unseen people are just filtered out. If > >> I want to check that they are in the database, I can simply reset the > >> filter. > >> > >> Tony > > I agree with Tony. I a filter is set to exclude people, or people or > > > > events are marked as private then I expect that they will not show in > > reports. I expect a filter set for a purpose to apply the same rules > were > > ever it is used. > > What is the use of filtering out people or marking as private if > these > > people or events then appear in reports. > > As an example, someone writes a biography of you. In their > research they > > discover your bank details, login passwords etc. You tell them they are > > private and must be filtered out, not used. When the book is published > > the information is included. How do you feel ? > > > > Ken. > > I think I may be confused, or this may be a little more subtle than > described here. Say that you pick a filter that gives you an individual, > but the report has places to list one's children and spouse. If we follow > the rule that we only display people on a report that are listed in the > filter, then none of the other people would display. > > Is there an easy way to, say, filter on one's immediately family? It isn't > descendant-based, as that would exclude the spouse. This sounds harder to > use, and not intuitive (unless there was a check box that made it worked > the way that it currently does, and includes those people). How any > current reports are designed to work by intuitively including people not > in the filter? How many are not? > > As I mentioned originally, I would like to know how the current > filters+reports output would change if we implement this privacy rule. > > -Doug > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Duncan L. <dli...@gm...> - 2008-01-04 12:18:46
|
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 09:51 +0100, Benny Malengier wrote: > With the new privacy proxy in 3.0, all that is private will _not_ be > in the proxy database, and hence will not be in the report. > Eg, bug http://bugs.gramps-project.org/view.php?id=1149 shows this, > works in 3.0, to implement in 2.2 would be a PITA. > > So I think we should try to convert all reports to run on the proxy > database if users click on the 'no private objects' option/filter I agree with Tony, Benny and the others who say private means "do not display - ever". I have a record for a daughter that not all family members know exists. I have to be pretty careful if i want people to talk to me and keep their trust. If I mark it private that means private, not sometimes list it and sometimes don't. Glad to hear that the new proxy_database will solve this. Duncan |
From: Ken <ma...@sl...> - 2008-01-06 02:09:43
|
Douglas S. Blank wrote: > On Thu, January 3, 2008 6:13 pm, Ken wrote: > >> Tony Gordon wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 09:59 +0100, Benny Malengier wrote: >>> >>>> 2008/1/1, Tony Gordon <TB...@xt... <mailto:TB...@xt...>>: >>>> >>>> My answer to Brian's question is yes and I think Aunt Martha would >>>> probably agree. If I intentionally filter out somebody then I >>>> wouldn't >>>> expect them to show regardless of which report we are talking >>>> about. >>>> This would be normal filter behaviour would it not? >>>> >>>> >>>> It depends, you might not want to see it, but you might want to know >>>> they are in your database so you should not worry about missing >>>> information. >>>> >>>> That is, should the report show 'withheld ancestor' or show nothing. >>>> >>>> My experience learns that if you show info to users with things not >>>> shown, they start to talk about them knowing who the missing person >>>> is, or the missing data, while in reality you have the data, you just >>>> printed a report with only the information needed to discuss with them. >>>> >>>> Benny >>>> >>>> >>> Benny >>> >>> I still think that to keep things simple and avoid the need to have >>> other user options in reports, if you filter someone out, they should >>> not show in the report i.e. show nothing. If I am worried about others >>> reactions to missing people in the report then I should either not >>> filter them out or have an explanation handy when they raise the >>> questions. >>> >>> What is actually in the database is another matter. When I use a >>> filter I should recognise that unseen people are just filtered out. If >>> I want to check that they are in the database, I can simply reset the >>> filter. >>> >>> Tony >>> >> I agree with Tony. I a filter is set to exclude people, or people or >> >> events are marked as private then I expect that they will not show in >> reports. I expect a filter set for a purpose to apply the same rules were >> ever it is used. >> What is the use of filtering out people or marking as private if these >> people or events then appear in reports. >> As an example, someone writes a biography of you. In their research they >> discover your bank details, login passwords etc. You tell them they are >> private and must be filtered out, not used. When the book is published >> the information is included. How do you feel ? >> >> Ken. >> > > I think I may be confused, or this may be a little more subtle than > described here. Say that you pick a filter that gives you an individual, > but the report has places to list one's children and spouse. If we follow > the rule that we only display people on a report that are listed in the > filter, then none of the other people would display. > If I filter out a person or a family I don't expect them to appear in any reports. I have some people in my database that are not know to everyone, and the parents concerned do not want them know until after their death. The is a lot of inconsistency in what is currently included in different reports. If you want me to create a list of those let me know. Ken. > Is there an easy way to, say, filter on one's immediately family? It isn't > descendant-based, as that would exclude the spouse. This sounds harder to > use, and not intuitive (unless there was a check box that made it worked > the way that it currently does, and includes those people). How any > current reports are designed to work by intuitively including people not > in the filter? How many are not? > > As I mentioned originally, I would like to know how the current > filters+reports output would change if we implement this privacy rule. > > -Doug > > |
From: Raphael A. <rap...@gm...> - 2008-01-06 07:55:39
|
Ken, On Jan 6, 2008 3:09 AM, Ken <ma...@sl...> wrote: > > If I filter out a person or a family I don't expect them to appear in any > reports. I have some people in my database that are not know to everyone, > and the parents concerned do not want them know until after their death. > The is a lot of inconsistency in what is currently included in different > reports. If you want me to create a list of those let me know. > > Ken. If you could write a list about what is included where that would be very helpful. Please add it to the wiki or open a bug report, feature request to track it. Raphael |